Full text of "Meat and Poultry Inspection"

See other formats

r '/ v,

I 1 /i

b ^

Meat and

R>ultry
Inspection

The Scientific Basis
of the Nation's Program

fflNAS

HNAE

The

of the Nation's togram

Prepared by the Committee on the
Scientific Basis of the Nation's Meat and
Poultry Inspection Program

Food and Nutrition Board
Commission on Life Sciences
National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, B.C. 1985

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board
of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the
National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of
Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their
special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.

This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures
approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in
1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's
purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. The Council
operates in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy under the author-
ity of its congressional charter of 1863, which establishes the Academy as a private,
nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation. The Council has become the principal
operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
Engineering in the conduct of their services to the government, the public, and the scientific
and engineering communities. It is administered jointly by both Academies and the In-
stitute of Medicine. The National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine
were established in 1964 and 1970, respectively, under the charter of the National Academy
of Sciences.

The study summarized in this report was supported by the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, under Contract No. 53-3A94-4-01.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 85-71993
International Standard Book Number 0-309-03582-1

Printed in the United States of America

Committee on the Scientific Basis of the Nation's
Meat and Poultry Inspection Program

Robert H. Wasserman (Chairman), New York State College of

Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca
John C. Bailar III, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard

University, Boston, Massachusetts, and Office of Disease Prevention

and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Washington, D.C.
Frank Bryan, Centers for Disease Control, U.S. Public Health Service,

Atlanta, Georgia
Billy M. Colvin, Veterinary Diagnostic and Investigational Laboratory,

University of Georgia, Tifton
Bernard Easterday, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of

Wisconsin, Madison

Thomas Grumbly, Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Harold Hafs, Merck, Sharpe, and Dohme Research Laboratory, Rahway,

New Jersey
Norman D. Heidelbaugh, Department of Veterinary Public Health,

Texas A & M University, College Station
John E. Kasik, Department of Internal Medicine, Veterans

Administration Medical Center, Iowa City, Iowa
Herbert W. Ockerman, Department of Animal Science, Ohio State

University, Columbus
Morris Potter, Centers for Disease Control, U.S. Public Health Service,

Atlanta, Georgia
Michael Pullen, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of

Minnesota, St. Paul
S. Benson Werner, California Department of Health Services, Berkeley

Zain Abedin, Project Director

Susan Berkow, Staff Officer

Marianne E. La Veille, Research Associate

Janie B. Marshall, Secretary

Linda Starke, Editor

Sushma Palmer, Executive Director, Food and Nutrition Board

Food and Nutrition Board

Kurt J. Isselbacher (Chairman), Massachusetts General Hospital,

Boston
Richard L. Hall (Vice-Chairman), Science and Technology, McCormick

and Company, Inc., Hunt Valley, Maryland
Hamish N. Munro (V ice-Chairman), Human Nutrition Research Center

on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts
William E. Connor, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health Science

University, Portland
Peter Greenwald, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National

Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
Joan D. Gussow, Department of Nutrition Education, Columbia

University, New York, New York
Richard J. Havel, Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of

California School of Medicine, San Francisco
Victor Herbert, Hematology and Nutrition Laboratory, Veterans

Administration Medical Center, Bronx, New York
James R. Kirk, Research and Development, Campbell Soup Company,

Camden, New Jersey
Reynaldo Martorell, Food Research Institute, Stanford University,

Stanford, California
J. Michael McGinnis, Office of Disease Prevention and Health

Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Washington, D.C.
Maiden C. Nesheim, Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell

University, Ithaca, New York
Robert H. Wasserman, New York State College of Veterinary Medicine,

Cornell University, Ithaca
Myron Winick, Institute of Human Nutrition, College of Physicians and

Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York

Sushma Palmer, Executive Director

Preface

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A) established the Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) to carry out the department's legal responsi-
bilities for assuring the safety and wholesomeness of meat and poultry
products for human consumption. In late 1983, FSIS asked the Food and
Nutrition Board (FNB) of the National Research Council to evaluate the
scientific basis of the current system for inspecting meat, poultry, and meat
and poultry products. This volume is the report of the committee appointed
by the Research Council to do the evaluation.

Traditional inspection methods remained unchanged for nearly 70 years,
and the public seems to have high confidence in the system. Some members
of the public, however, have expressed concern about the potential effect on
public health of some recently introduced changes and of others under
consideration. There has been little attempt to date to evaluate these
changes systematically. FSIS, recognizing the need to reevaluate the sys-
tem under these changing conditions, asked the Research Council to under-
take this task.

The Committee on the Scientific Basis of the Nation's Meat and Poultry
Inspection Program formed in response to this request was asked to:

assess the scientific foundation for USDA's meat and poultry inspec-
tion programs to determine its impact on the quality, quantity, and health
of livestock and on the character and degree of various risks to human
health;

make a comprehensive analysis of different inspection strategies, in-
cluding comparative risk assessment, to predict their impact on public
health; and

make recommendations based on new developments in biological re-
search and technology and in food science that might be used in the
inspection program to further enhance its effectiveness and efficiency
while maintaining or improving the current degree of public health protec-
tion.

The Research Council made special efforts to ensure that the collective
knowledge of the committee encompassed all the types of expertise needed
to conduct a study of this scope and complexity. The resulting

multidisciplinary group included experts in public health, food micro-
biology, food science, veterinary medicine, analytical chemistry, toxicol-
ogy, biostatistics, and risk analysis.

The subject of this study is of interest to members of the general public,
who are concerned about the safety of the meat and poultry products they
consume; to the industry, which must provide safe and economical products
in return for the opportunity to earn fair profits; and to the regulatory
agencies, which are responsible for inspecting the slaughter, processing,
and distribution of food-animals to ensure that only safe and wholesome
products are delivered for human consumption.

The committee had to address such complex questions as: What is the
scientific basis for our traditional inspection system? How did it evolve?
How effective are current monitoring and surveillance procedures in
minimizing public health risks? What is the degree of risk to public health
from the recent changes in inspection procedures? How can the inspection
system be made more effective and efficient in providing protection for the
public? How well do the underlying mechanisms for policy development
work, and can they be improved?

In attempting to answer these questions, the committee was primarily
concerned with two kinds of human health hazards: (1) diseases transmit-
ted from animals to humans by infected or diseased animal tissues
(zoonoses) or by pathogenic microorganisms (or their toxins) that can enter
into the food chain during production, slaughter, processing, storage,
transport, or preparation for consumption and (2) exposure to meat- and
poultry-borne chemical residues such as antibiotics, hormones, growth
promotion chemicals, pesticides, and industrial chemicals, whether the
hazard arises from direct toxicity or from the release of antibiotic-resistant
bacteria into the environment. (Nutritional-deficiency diseases and health
hazards associated with the fat content of meat and poultry were not part of
the charge to the committee and therefore are not considered in this report.)

The committee used data from FSIS sources and the general scientific
and technical literature, supplemented by other sources, to produce a
pragmatic report with recommendations that would be useful to FSIS, the
public, and the industry. The additional sources included:

A public meeting on April 26, 1984: Interested parties were invited to
attend this widely advertised meeting, to speak, and to submit documents
for the record. Consumer advocates and food scientists and technologists
from research organizations, government agencies, the meat and poultry
industry, and academic institutions presented their views and provided
data on the safety of meat and poultry products.

Site visits by committee members and staff: Firsthand information
was obtained both through observation of slaughtering and processing
plants and field laboratories and through discussions with personnel work-
ing there.

A questionnaire survey of plant inspectors and supervisors: Approxi-
mately 200 plant workers, inspectors, and other FSIS employees, randomly

selected from the complete FSIS roster, were asked to respond to specific
questions.

A workshop on advances in science and technology: Experts in biotech-
nology, analytical chemistry, biological imaging techniques, and computer
automation informed the committee on the state of the science in each area,
including possible applications of advanced technology to meat and poultry
inspection programs.

The committee met seven times to review and evaluate the data from
these sources, to discuss past and current research publications, and to
develop its conclusions and recommendations. Donald Houston of FSIS and
his colleagues attended two committee meetings to discuss inspection
strategies, risk profiles, and plans for the future. They also provided sub-
stantial documentation in response to inquiries about specific matters.

A summary of the committee's findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions appears in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 contains a historical perspective on
the meat and poultry inspection system. Public health hazards caused by
meat- and poultry-borne pathogenic microorganisms and by chemical re-
sidues are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, respectively. Chapters 5,6, and 7
are reviews of production and of inspection elements in slaughter and
processing operations. Chapter 8 contains an evaluation of the concept of
hazard analysis and critical control points and its applicability to meat and
poultry inspection. Chapter 9 is a review of advances in analytical tech-
niques and biotechnologies that might be adapted to meat and poultry
inspection, and Chapter 10 is a discussion of broader issues concerning
FSIS programs and the use of risk assessment in decision making, public
policy, and management.

The committee is grateful for the invaluable assistance of the many
individuals who provided testimony or submitted written information.
Speakers at the public meeting were John Brown, University of Georgia;
Garrison Koehler, Bactomatic; Rodney E. Leonard, Community Nutrition
Institute; Janet Lowden, U.S. General Accounting Office; Kenneth N. May,
Holly Farms Poultry Industry, Inc.; Carl L. Telleen, private veterinarian;
and George D. Wilson, American Meat Institute. The workshop speakers
were Harvey Brandwein, Genetic Diagnostics; Rita Colwell, University of
Maryland; Dean L. Engelhardt, Enzo-Biochem; Rabia Hussain, National
Institutes of Health; Larry Merricks, Dynamac Corp.; James Stouffer,
Cornell University; and M. Ter-Pogossian, School of Medicine, Washington
University.

The committee thanks the FSIS personnel who assisted in arranging for
the various site visits: Francis Adams, Carl Blattenberg, E. K. Casey-
Shaw, K. S. Daniels, Don A. Franco, R. L. Hardy, Joseph Lyons, Mark T.
Mina, Ned Rice, Robert A. Stahnke, and C. Gil Varg. The study also
benefited from the contributions of William L. Jenkins, Timothy D. Phil-
lips, Barbara E. Richardson, Leon H. Russell, and Stephen H. Safe from the
College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A & M University. We especially
thank Donald Houston and his staff for repeatedly providing requested

vii

data and responding to detailed questions from the committee about FSIS
programs.

Beyond these contributors, the committee thanks the many people it
consulted who are not specifically acknowledged, and the following people
who gave assistance either in person or in writing: Charles L. Cannon,
National Live Stock and Meat Board; Charlie Cook, Oscar Mayer Com-
pany; H. Russell Cross, American Meat Science Association; Theodore
Farber, Food and Drug Administration; Harold E. Ford, Southeastern
Poultry & Egg Association; Scott Holmberg, Centers for Disease Control;
Edward L. Menning, National Association of Federal Veterinarians; Alan
Moghissi, Environmental Protection Agency; Harry C. Mussman and
Lloyd R. Hontz, National Food Processors Association; Joseph Rodricks,
Environ Corporation; Ann L. Shriver and Eileen V. Ravenswaay , Michigan
State University; Kerri Wagner, National Broiler Council; Larry A. Ward,
Tyson Foods, Inc.; and George Wilson and Jim Hodges, American Meat
Institute.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank Zain Abedin, Project
Director, for the considerable time and effort spent guiding our discussions
of this important public health issue. The committee also wishes to ac-
knowledge the extensive contributions of Sushma Palmer, Executive
Director of the Food and Nutrition Board, to its deliberations and final
product this report. Additional thanks go to Susan Berkow, Staff Officer;
Marianne E. La Veille, Research Associate; Linda Starke, Consultant
Editor; Frances Peter, Research Council Editor; and Janie B. Marshall and
Barbara Miller, Secretaries, without whom our report would not be before
you now. Lastly, I would like to thank the other members of the committee
for all the hard work they so willingly contributed.

Robert H. Wasserman

Chairman

Committee on the Scientific Basis of the

Nation's Meat and Poultry Inspection Program

Contents

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

Major Conclusions and Recommendations 3

Public Health Risks Related to Biological Agents 3

Public Health Risks Related to Chemical Agents 4

Production of Food- Animals 6

Meat and Poultry Processing and Inspection 7

Advanced Technology 9

Characteristics of an Optimal Meat and Poultry Inspection Program . . 10

2 THE HISTORY OF INSPECTION PROGRAMS

AND THE DEBATE ON CURRENT PROCEDURES 13

References 19

3 PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS FROM BIOLOGICAL AGENTS 21

Infectious Agents and Modes of Transmission 24

Enteric Agents 24

Extraintestinal Agents 28

Occupational Infectious Diseases 29

Minimizing Risks After Meat and Poultry Are Processed 30

Summary and Recommendations 33

References 35

4 MANAGEMENT OF CHEMICAL HAZARDS

IN MEAT AND POULTRY 43

Chemical Hazards: Some Examples 44

Production-Related Chemicals 44

Processing-Related Chemical Contamination 46

The Uncertain Regulatory Context 49

The National Residue Program 49

NRP Objectives 50

Evaluation of the NRP 53

An Optimal Program to Assess and Manage Chemical Hazards

in Meat and Poultry 54

The Role of the Public 58

Technological Advances Affecting Inspection 59

Conclusions and Recommendations 59

References 61

5 MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTION 68

Production and Feeding Environments 68

Cattle 68

Swine 70

Sheep 71

Chickens 72

Turkeys 73

Transportation 74

Health Maintenance and Disease Control Systems 74

The Potential Impact on Public Health 75

Summary and Recommendations 76

References 78

6 SLAUGHTER AND INSPECTION OF MEAT AND POULTRY 80

Antemortem Inspection 80

Postmortem Inspection 82

Head, Carcass, and Viscera Inspection 82

Plant Sanitation 86

Sanitary Slaughter and Dressing 86

Carcass Reinspection 87

Poultry Chilling 87

Biological Residue Monitoring 87

Animal Disease Surveillance 87

Condemnation and Final Disposition 88

Summary and Evaluation 90

Recommendations : 91

References 92

7 MEAT AND POULTRY PROCESSING AND INSPECTION 95

Processing's Effects on Health Risks and Spoilage 96

Raw Meat and Poultry: Chilled or Frozen 97

Cured Meat and Poultry 102

Smoked Meat and Poultry 103

Fermented Sausage 103

Dried Meat and Poultry 103

Rendered Meat and Fat 104

Pasteurized Meat and Poultry 104

Low-Acid Canned Meat and Poultry 105

Hermetically Sealed, Shelf-Stable, Cured Meat and Poultry 106

Fully Sterilized Cured Meat and Poultry 106

Radicidized (Irradiation Pasteurized) Meat and Poultry 106

Radappertized (Commercially Sterilized) Meat and Poultry 107

Inspection Responsibilities and Strategies 107

Traditional Inspection 109

Industry Quality Control/Quality Assurance Approaches 112

FSIS Total Quality Control Program 113

Summary and Recommendations 116

References 119

8 THE HAZARD ANALYSIS CRITICAL CONTROL POINT

APPROACH TO FOOD SAFETY 124

The Principles of HACCP 124

Hazard Analysis 125

Critical Control Points 126

Monitoring 127

Critical Control Points in the Meat and Poultry Industry 128

Animal Production 128

Slaughtering/Dressing 129

Processed Products 129

Meat and Poultry Products After Processing 133

Training 134

Summary and Recommendations 134

References 136

9 NEW TECHNOLOGY: APPROACHES TO MEAT

AND POULTRY INSPECTION 138

Separation and Identification Methods 138

Current Technologies 138

New Technologies 140

Imaging Techniques 142

Nonphotographic Visualization of X-ray Images 142

X-ray Visualization by Digital Subtraction Methods 143

Ultrasound 143

Computer- Assisted Axial Tomography (CAT) 144

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) 144

Robotics 145

Computer Automation: Data Gathering, Processing, and Distribution . . 145

Computer-Based Information Systems 145

Automated Laboratory Methods 146

Summary and Recommendations 146

References 147

LO NEW DIRECTIONS FOR DECISION MAKING IN MEAT
AND POULTRY INSPECTION: EVIDENCE REQUIRED

FOR QUANTITATIVE HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 150

An Optimal Meat and Poultry Inspection Program 150

Identifying and Addressing Risk Through Quantitative Health Risk

Assessment 154

The Elements of Risk Assessment 154

Applying Risk Assessment to Meat and Poultry Inspection 156

Building Toward an Optimal System 158

Current Constraints 158

A Source of Optimism: The Will to Change 161

Implementing Program Change 162

References 163

PPENDIXES

U.S. Production of Cattle, Swine, Sheep, Chickens, and Turkeys 165

USD A Quality Control Regulations 189

rLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 199

STOEX 201

Executive Summary

The American public expects that meat and poultry products in the
marketplace are as safe and wholesome as technically feasible, and
public opinion polls indicate that consumers generally have confidence
that this is so. Indeed, meat and poultry products that pass through
the inspection system are, for the most part, wholesome. The whole-
someness of the nation's meat and poultry supply depends on each link
in a chain from the farm to the slaughterhouse to the table. This
report addresses primarily the ways in which the Food Safety and Inspec-
tion Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) can
further strengthen its part of the chain not only to reduce the number
of occurrences of bacterial infections but also to reduce chemical con-
tamination and ensure the general safety and wholesomeness of meat and
poultry.

The responsibility for ensuring the safety of meat and poultry
products was conferred upon the USDA through a mandate in the Federal
Meat Inspection Act of 1906 and subsequent acts and amendments. These
documents directed the USDA to inspect meat and poultry products that
enter commerce and are destined for human consumption. The wide-
ranging obligations of the FSIS include the assurance of a sanitary
environment in slaughter and processing plants and the monitoring of
all relevant stages of animal slaughter as well as meat and poultry
processing procedures. The overall goal of the inspection program has
been to ensure that meat, poultry, and their products are wholesome,
unadulterated, and properly labeled^- and do not constitute a health
hazard to the consumer. Toward this goal, FSIS personnel inspect meat
and poultry products animal-by-animal and process-by-process in slaugh-
terhouses and processing plants.

Slaughter inspectors rely almost completely on sight, smell, and
touch to discern abnormalities in animals and carcasses. This procedure

legal definition of these terms can be found in the Federal Meat

was designed primarily to protect consumers from grossly visible
lesions or diseases. Although this labor-intensive system tends to
ensure safe and wholesome products with respect to such lesions, its
efficiency came under scrutiny by FSIS as science and technology
advanced and the understanding of risks to human health became more
defined.

In 1906, acute infections were the leading causes of human mortality
and morbidity* Today, more than 60% of all human deaths in this
country each year are due to cardiovascular disease and cancer chronic
diseases attributed primarily to life-style, products of industrial-
ization, and the increasing average age of the U.S. population. Also,
through improved controls and deliverance of health care to farm
animals, certain animal diseases have been virtually eradicated. The
importation of diseased animals into the United States has essentially
been prevented, and diseases that can be transmitted from animals to
humans have been curtailed or in some cases practically eliminated.

Simultaneously, the production of meat and poultry products has
become increasingly complex. In contrast to the few basic cuts of
fresh meat and poultry available early in this century, there is now a
great variety of raw, canned, cured, dried, fermented, and frozen
products. The technological growth that made these products possible
has contributed to the greater need for sophistication in determining
the origin and path of food-borne microbial infections. Finally, envi-
ronmental contaminants and the increasing use of chemicals in animal
feeds and to some extent in processed foods have led to the presence of
chemical residues in meat and poultry, some of which may be sources of
potentially deleterious effects.

These changes have led FSIS to institute new programs and proce-
dures. In the past two decades, FSIS began programs for determining
microbial and chemical hazards in meat and poultry; modified inspection
procedures for chickens, swine, and turkeys to increase production ef-
ficiency and decrease inspection time; and, in processing plants, start-
ed to shift the burden for maintaining the quality and safety of pro-
cessed products to plant management under FSIS supervision.

Is the inspection system in place today adequate to meet new
challenges? Are the initiatives taken by FSIS consistent with current
concerns about public health? Can technological developments in the
detection and control of deleterious microbiological and chemical
agents and advances in assessment of risks to human health be better
applied to meat and poultry inspection? This was the essence of the
charge given by FSIS to the National Research Council's Committee on
the Scientific Basis of the Nation's Meat and Poultry Inspection
Program, which was established to conduct this study within the Food
and Nutrition Board of the Commission on Life Sciences in conjunction
with the Board on Agriculture.

The committee organized its tasks by identifying and categorizing
various risks that could be presented by different parts of the
production and processing operations. It then based its analysis on an
assessment of the literature, discussions with experts from FSIS and
the scientific community, public testimony of scientists and others
from the public and private sectors, an independent survey of FSIS
inspectors in meat and poultry plants, and site visits to selected
plants* The assessment was limited by incomplete data, including the
lack of systematic data on various phases of inspection as they relate
to public health, and by the inherent difficulty of relating findings
during inspection to endpoints affecting public health, such as the
incidence or prevalence of human diseases.

The committee did not limit its study to those activities directly
under the jurisdiction of FSIS. Rather, it considered all potential
sources of health hazards in meat and poultry products, including
farms, feedlots, and the ultimate destinations the food establishments
and the homes where foods are handled, stored, and cooked.

The conclusions reached and recommendations made by the committee
are aimed at developing programs to ensure that the inspection system
keeps pace with advances in knowledge and is efficient with regard to
public health protection. The committee has also identified
characteristics that in its judgment constitute an optimal meat and
poultry inspection program.

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The meat and poultry inspection program of the FSIS has in general
been effective in ensuring that apparently healthy animals are
slaughtered in clean and sanitary environments. FSIS has made progress
in reducing risks to public health from conditions that can be observed
during antemortem and postmortem inspection and that can be evaluated
during processing. However, substantial challenges continue to
confront the agency. Some aspects of the inspection system are poorly
defined in terms of objectives relevant to public health. A risk-based
allocation of resources, supported by modern technology and a
systematic evaluation of the program, would be valuable.

Public Health Risks Related to Biological Agents

It is well established that species of Salmonella and Campylo-
bacter are major causes of diseases transmissible to humans through the
consumption of meat and poultry products, and the committee concluded
that current postmortem inspection methods are not adequate to detect
these organisms. For example, meat and poultry were implicated in
1,420 of the 2,666 food-borne disease outbreaks from known sources
reported to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) between 1968 and
1977. Salmonella contamination accounted for approximately 26% of all
food-borne outbreaks in 1981. Meat and poultry were also responsible

for 4 out of 23 outbreaks due to species of Campylobacter (a less
easily detectable organism) reported to the CDC during 1981 and 1982.
Of particular concern to the committee is the risk presented by
food-borne microbial infections to susceptible subgroups such as young
children and the elderly. Pathogenic microorganisms reside in the
gastrointestinal tracts and on external surfaces of food-animals and
cannot be detected by the usual organoleptic procedures (i.e., sight,
smell, and touch) used during inspection. Therefore, human pathogens
such as species of Salmonella, Campylobacter , Clostridium, and
Staphylococcus are not ordinarily identified during slaughter.

Microbial contamination is common among fresh foods, including meat
and poultry. Hazards from such contamination have been minimized,
however, by FSIS inspection and by the USDA f s educational efforts,
which have resulted in improved handling of foods in slaughter and
processing plants, food service facilities, and homes. Microorganisms
in raw meat and poultry products can multiply, spread, and perhaps
cross-contaminate other foods in food-service establishments and homes
unless the products are handled properly in the plant, during
transport, in retail outlets, and by the consumer after purchase.
Proper handling and cooking are important to avoid contamination of
meat and poultry by species of Salmonella and Campylobacter ; for pork
products that might contain the food-borne parasite Trichinella
spiralis, proper cooking is essential.

Slaughterhouse employees are at especially high risk because of
their exposure to infectious organisms that cause brucellosis and
psittacosis infections that humans can acquire by direct contact with
diseased animals. Although an eradication program has effectively
reduced the incidence of brucellosis in most of the U.S. population,
the disease still occurs to some extent among slaughterhouse employees.

Recommendations . The committee recommends that FSIS intensify its
current efforts to control and eliminate contamination with micro-
organisms that cause disease in humans. Such efforts should include
evaluation of rapid diagnostic procedures for detecting microorganisms,
especially species of Salmonella and Campylobacter , and education of
the general public, health care personnel, educators, and extension
service workers in the safe handling of meat and poultry. The
committee also recommends that meat handling practices in plants be
monitored and evaluated in an attempt to prevent the occurrence of
meat- and poultry-derived infections among plant employees. Although
their prevalance is low, these infections present significant and
avoidable occupational hazards. Better epidemiological surveillance
and coordination of efforts to eradicate these diseases are also
needed. (See Chapters 3, 6, and 7 for a detailed discussion of
biological agents in meat and poultry that pose a risk to human health.)

Public Health Risks Related to Chemical Agents

The committee concluded that although significant strides have been
made in protecting the public against exposure to hazardous chemicals

In meat and poultry, the fundamental design of FSIS f s residue moni-
toring program needs to be improved to ensure maximum protection. In
particular, the committee questions the adequacy of sampling size and
procedures, the basis for and the utility of tolerance levels for
chemicals, and the basis for setting priorities for testing chemicals.

Through Its National Residue Program ( NRP) , which was instituted in
1967, FSIS applies new technologies and testing procedures in the moni-
toring of approximately 100 of the chemicals that may be found In meat
and poultry* The chemicals analyzed are selected on the basis of
toxicity, exposure level, persistence, and other criteria. During
postmortem inspection, samples are taken from each animal species to
test for compliance with tolerance levels for the chemical, as well as
to determine the frequency, trends, and distribution patterns of the
chemical in meat and poultry. In addition, samples suspected of
containing unacceptably high residue levels are examined so that
remedial action can be taken. The current residue testing strategy of
FSIS to detect with 95% confidence whether or not a problem exists in
1% of the animal population is inadequate to eliminate consumer
exposure to residues. Because millions of animals are slaughtered
annually (e.g., between 36 million and 40 million cattle alone), the
chance of any animal being sampled in the United States is minuscule.
Furthermore, because of the increasing number and variety of con-
taminating residues that may constitute possible health hazards, es-
pecially to susceptible subgroups in the population, and because the
overall contamination rate of less than 1% may be considerably higher
for certain food sources or consumer groups, the committee questions
whether the size of the sampling plan is adequate.

The committee identified some desirable characteristics of an
optimal system for the NRP and compared them with the current program.
It concluded that the NRP now meets its primary objectives and has made
considerable progress in several categories, but that it is deficient
in 3 of 10 desirable characteristics. Its sampling plan is not
adequate to provide maximum protection to consumers, there is no free
communication with experts outside the agency, and there is no formal
risk assessment and risk management program. The committee believes
that a program based on rational public health objectives and risk
assessment would contain many of the characteristics identified and
would ensure that no one person would consistently be exposed to le-
vels of chemicals in excess of established tolerance levels.

Recommendations. The committee recognizes that the NRP is con-
strained in many ways by its legislative mandates. It recommends,
however, that the NRP strive to make substantial progress in several
categories to meet the requirements for an optimal program identified
by the committee. In particular, the NRP should incorporate strate-
gies that would prevent consumers from exposure to potential health
hazards. One of the ways this could be accomplished is to introduce
a system to identify and trace back animals to their farms. The sam-
pling plan to test chemical residues should be revised to improve

the confidence level of detection by using appropriate statistical
methods and new technological advances* Furthermore, the committee
suggests that FSIS reexamine the priorities and the methods used by
regulatory agencies for establishing tolerance levels of chemicals to
ensure that they appropriately reflect the degree of risks to public
health* Formal risk assessment and frequent communication with other
regulatory agencies and with scientific peer-review groups would be
particularly beneficial to FSIS in this endeavor (see Chapter 4).

P r o duct ion o f F o o d - An ima 1 s

The committee concluded that the most effective way to prevent or
minimize hazards presented by certain infectious agents and chemical
residues in meat and poultry is to control these agents at their point
of entry into the food chain, i.e., during the production phase on the
farm and in feedlots* However, FSIS cannot exercise such control
because it has no jurisdiction in those areas. Environmental contamina-
tion and improper use of feed additives fall within the purview of
other government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and
the Environmental Protection Agency. The problem is compounded by the
absence of an effective national surveillance system for monitoring the
disease status of food-animals and by an inadequate mechanism for
tracing infected or contaminated animals back to their source.

Currently, the probability of successfully tracing a diseased or
contaminated animal to the producer is very low (approximately 10% for
cattle and 30% for swine). Furthermore, although samples at the
postmortem stage are tested for chemical residues and certain micro-
organisms, there is no mechanism for reliably tracing an unacceptably
high level to its origin. The inability to institute action at the
first critical point of production (on the farm) places a heavy
responsibility on antemortem and postmortem inspections to identify
potential health hazards, although, as explained above, such inspections
by themselves cannot solve the problem.

Cattle are produced in many parts of the United States, and owner-
ship usually changes several times before the animals reach the
slaughterhouse* Transport from farms to feedlots and subsequently to
slaughterhouses increases the chance of exposure to infectious agents
and subjects animals to considerable stress, thereby increasing their
susceptibility to pathogenic agents.

Veterinary medical care and federal and state animal disease
regulatory programs have considerably improved the health of
food-animals in the United States and reduced the prevalence of
diseases such as brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis. However,
potential new risks are presented by chemical residues derived from the
widespread practice of adding antimicrobial compounds and other
chemicals to animal feed to promote growth or prevent infection.

The committee examined some recent case histories concerning
residues and infectious agents. These included the polychlorinated
biphenyl contamination through fatty animal by-products added to feed
in the western United States in the summer of 1979, contamination of
turkey products with chemical residues in the state of Washington
during 1979, and polybrominated biphenyl contaminations in Michigan.
The committee also investigated Salmonella contamination. In each of
these cases, contamination at the farm creates a significant problem
that is difficult for the inspection system to control by traditional
inspection methods. Once animals reach the slaughterhouse, the line
speeds and economic concerns necessitate sampling for residues on a
very limited basis, and mostly with technology that is still quite
imperfect and is not yet adequate to alleviate the problem.

The committee noted that voluntary identification (trace-back)
programs have had some success in the swine and poultry industries due
to the changing structure (through vertical integration) of those
industries. Recent evidence also suggests that cooperative programs
between farmers , slaughterers, and the government can be effective in
minimizing problems before they reach the slaughterhouse.

Re . c gmmen .da t i on s . The committee recommends that means be found for
FSIS to coordinate the control and monitoring of hazardous agents
during production, where those agents enter the food supply. Further-
more, it recommends that a system be developed for keeping track of
food-animals during their lifetime, that procedures be instituted to
trace residues in samples back to their sources, and that a national
center be established to monitor and store information on animal
diseases. To assist in these efforts, the committee recommends that
all USDA animal disease surveillance programs be designed and
implemented to use fully the animal disease prevalence data obtained
from meat and poultry inspection programs.

Meat and Poultry Processing and Inspection

For many years, FSIS used what is commonly referred to as
traditional inspection procedures. Not until the last decade were some
new procedures instituted. Between 1979 and 1983, for example, FSIS
introduced several new postmortem inspection procedures designed to
ensure wholesomeness , improve efficiency, and increase production:
Modified Traditional Inspection and New Line Speed for chickens, New
Swine Postmortem Inspection, and New Turkey Inspection procedures.

In the judgment of the committee, these new procedures are
not likely to diminish protection of the public health. However, the
committee could find no clear evidence that the traditional inspection
system and modifications to it over the years are based on objectives
and criteria that relate to public health. Furthermore, the committee
could make no overall assessment of risks and benefits because it could
find no comprehensive statement of criteria, no systematic accumulation
of data, and no complete technical analysis of the hazards or benefits

to human health in the traditional inspection program or as a
consequence of the adoption of new techniques* Similarly, it could
find no scientific basis for several ante- and postmortem disposition
guidelines for example, the requirement that livestock bitten by a
rabid animal must not be slaughtered for at least 8 months, or that
livestock showing signs of the onset of parturition should be withheld
from slaughter until after the birth and the passage of the placenta
(see Chapter 6).

A major change also took place in processing plants in 1980 when
voluntary Total Quality Control (TQC) was first permitted . In essence,
TQC places the major responsibility for producing safe products and
inspecting them on the industry, which is monitored by FSIS. Currently,
approximately 7% (475) of all meat and poultry processing plants have
USDA-approved TQC systems in place; these plants produce 9% of the
processed meat and poultry in the country. In principle, TQC is more
systematic and objective than the traditional FSIS inspection procedure.
A recent evaluation of 15 establishments using TQC suggests that it
benefits both USDA and the industry and possibly inspires greater
confidence in compliance because it allows the FSIS inspector to review
a broader scope of plant operations. Universal and mandatory applica-
tion of TQC, however, would require that all plants have a long record
of compliance with FSIS's inspection guidelines, a commitment on the
part of plant management, and better training of both meat packers and
federal inspectors in quality control procedures than currently exists.
The TQC system is a relatively new FSIS inspection system, and there is
little experience on which to judge its public health benefits. In the
committee's judgment, the FSIS-instituted changes in processing
procedures are not likely to reduce public health protection.

Another approach to inspection Hazard Analysis Critical Control
Points (HACCP) is used or is being considered for use in some
operations. It consists of determining hazards, identifying critical
control points where hazards can be eliminated, and monitoring those
points (see Chapter 8). With proper modifications, HACCP can be
applied to each phase of the food chain and in each plant.

Recommendations . Overall, the committee recommends that the
precepts of risk assessment (identification of the problem, exposure
assessment, hazard assessment, and quantitative health risk assessment)
be systematically embodied in the planning and evaluation of all phases
of meat and poultry inspection, and that risk-assessment criteria be
used regularly to assess consequences to public health of any modifi-
cations in the inspection process (see Chapter 10).

Despite its preliminary conclusion based on the limited information
that TQC works satisfactorily, the committee recommends that newer
technologies be incorporated into TQC and that personnel be recruited
and trained to increase the efficiency of the system. As explained
below, the committee favors the incorporation of the HACCP approach
into meat and poultry slaughtering and processing operations, including
the TQC program.

Whereas traditional inspection applies primarily to the ante- and
postmortem phases and TQC is currently applied during the processing of
meat and poultry, HACCP is a comprehensive approach applicable to the
range of operations from production of animals to slaughter, processing,
and handling in retail outlets, food-service establishments, and homes.
Traditional Inspection and TQC are structured to comply with federal
inspection regulations, which are concerned to a large extent with plant
sanitation and with aesthetics and economy in producing safe and whole-
some products. In contrast, HACCP Is concerned primarily with criteria
relevant to public health.

The committee recognizes that FSIS has implemented the principles of
HACCP In certain operations; however, it recommends that those
principles be applied more rapidly and comprehensively In plant
operations and that periodic evaluations be performed to ensure that
critical control points related to public health are emphasized in the
inspection process in addition to whatever control points are needed
for reasons related to aesthetics and economy. This should apply to
both traditional and TQC approaches. To achieve both operational
efficiency and protection of public health, critical control points
must be identified, inspectors trained in the HACCP approach, and
procedures regularly monitored.

Advanced Technology

Although FSIS has adopted new technologies, the committee found that
the efficiency of the current inspection and processing operations and
the ability of those procedures to protect public health are impeded by
the limited application of rapid, specific, and sensitive techniques to
detect pathogenic microorganisms and deleterious chemicals in meat and
poultry and by Inadequate information acquisition and retrieval
facilities. For example, the failure to apply sufficiently modern
techniques to detect abnormalities In organs and tissues necessitates
more extensive, yet less efficient, human resources during inspection.

The current FSIS computer capabilities for the acquisition,
analysis, and transmission of data are relatively slow and are
inadequate to meet the growing demands of the agency for rapid
interpretation of, for example, data on the prevalence and public
health implications of high levels of chemical and microbial residues
in meat and poultry. Computer-assisted information systems with better
capabilities are commercially available.

Recent advances in science and technology have made possible rapid,
sensitive, and inexpensive techniques based on immunological and
recoinbinant DNA principles (biotechnology), some of which can be applied
at the farm level for screening microbial and chemical contaminants.
The Swab Test on Premises (STOP) and the Calf Antibiotic Sulfonamide
Test (CAST) are two such techniques used by FSIS for antimicrobial
residues. STOP is a new fast screening test for antibiotics that is
used at slaughter. CAST is a similar technique for antibiotics and

sulfonamide residues . The results of these tests can be obtained
within 24 hours, compared with 1 to 2 weeks using conventional methods.

Recommendations . In the judgment of the committee, the techniques
that have the greatest potential applicability to FSIS procedures are
imaging techniques, computer-assisted information transfer, and
automated laboratory methods for analysis and measurement* To achieve
the goal of installing a modern, technology-based system, the committee
recommends that FSIS develop a capability for conducting or contracting
for scientific and technical research tailored to its needs, rather
than depending on other USDA agencies. However, interaction with other
USDA agencies, other government agencies, and private groups is
essential. Thus, the committee also recommends the establishment of a
scientific advisory body composed of representatives from government,
industry, universities, and research organizations to facilitate such
interaction (see Chapter 9).

CHARACTERISTICS OF AN OPTIMAL MEAT AND POULTRY INSPECTION PROGRAM

In view of the above conclusions and recommendations, the committee
identified the following components (not in any order of priority) of
an optimal meat and poultry inspection system. It recognizes that many
of these components are part of the current FSIS system (see Chapter
10).

* A trace-back and recall system from final sale to producer for
all animals and products destined to enter the human food supply. This
is essential for the generation of data that are important to the pre-
vention of disease in humans and that will enable processors and the
government to solve problems in the food chain.

e Maximum use of plant personnel in process-by-process and day-to-
day monitoring of critical control points, and FSIS oversight to ensure
compliance -

* Use in all phases of Inspection of a technically qualified team
with up-to-date knowledge of veterinary medicine, food science, public
health, food engineering, food technology, epidemiology, pathology,
toxicology, microbiology, animal science, risk analysis, systems
analysis, statistics, computer science, and economics. Similarly,
managers should have expertise in several relevant disciplines,
including veterinary medicine, food science and technology, nutrition,
public health, and public management. No one discipline should
dominate management.

* An inspection system with different levels of intensity, reflect-
ing the degree of public health risk at various stages in the process,
the reliability of the monitoring system, the compliance history of the
slaughterhouse or processing plant, and the special needs of the
intended consumer (e.g., military personnel and schoolchildren).

9 Development of a list of the diseases that can be identified by
each step in the inspection procedure. This list should be used to
determine whether the steps are useful for protecting human or animal
health, useful for detecting aesthetically objectionable conditions,
necessary to protect consumers against fraud, or able to provide other
identifiable benefits*

Random sampling of retained or condemned carcasses and parts of
carcasses in order to develop definitive diagnoses. These diagnoses
can be used to establish baseline data on etiologies associated with
each condemnation category and to provide material for pathology
correlation sessions as continuing education for in-plant veterinary
medical officers.

9 Rapid, inexpensive screening tests to detect a broad array of
chemical compounds and biological products that may be hazardous to the
consumer.

9 An adequate sampling plan, designed to protect the consumer from
exposure to chemicals that are not randomly distributed across the
country.

Emphasis on hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP),
limiting inspection where the historic yield of violations is low and
where public health risks are negligible.

Documented assurance, backed by substantial compliance enforce-
ment, of the sanitary wholesomeness of all meat and poultry products.

Enhanced enforcement capability to impose a broad range of
penalties upon violators, including refusal to inspect and approve
their products.

Adequate resources to ensure continued improvement of the tech-
nological base of FSIS, including the development of new inspection
technologies to reduce cross-contamination of carcasses and more
comprehensive assessment of toxicological hazards.

9 A mandatory system of initial and continuing education for
inspection personnel that emphasizes food science, food technology,
pathology, and public health, combined with a recertification program.

A substantial scientific and technical FSIS staff of respected
scientists who play a substantial consultative role in the development
of policy.

The presence of standing advisory panels composed primarily of
outside experts to provide consultation on both policy and practice
regarding meat and poultry safety. Disciplines represented on these
panels should include food science and technology, computer
applications, microbiology, biostatistics , epidemiology, veterinary

icine, toxicology, systems analysis, animal health, economics,
keting, nutrition, and risk analysis. Again, no one discipline
uld dominate any panel. All major regulatory proposals should be
iewed by standing advisory panels prior to f inalization*

Strong liaison between FSIS, CDC, the Food and Drug Administra-
n, and relevant animal health agencies at the federal, state, and
al levels to ensure that no hazards are overlooked.

9 Substantial use of a rapid, timely, and flexible system (probably
puter-based) to acquire, transfer, analyze, and make more widely
ilable data related to inspection and to meat-borne hazards.

The committee encourages FSIS to compare its program with these
teria and to establish a schedule for incorporating missing
ponents as soon as feasible.

The History of Inspection
Programs and the Debate
on Current Procedures

The meat and poultry inspection system of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) was created just after the turn of the century, as
the nation was evolving from an agrarian to an industrial society.
Although the earliest laws were passed to assure European importers of
the safety of the American meat supply, meat and poultry inspection
practices today focus on providing safe and wholesome products for
Americans. This chapter looks at the evolution of the current USDA
inspection system to show how several technological and social changes
have affected inspection concepts and procedures.

From earliest times humans have eaten meat from animals. Various
ancient cults and religious groups prohibited the consumption of
certain types of meat. The food edicts of ancient Egypt, for example,
proclaimed the pig unclean and the cow sacred, and the eating of their
flesh as food was banned. Prohibitions such as these were probably
based on considerations of sacrament or perhaps economics rather than
public health. The real reasons behind the ceremonial food prohibition
have long been lost, and anthropologists speculate that the origins
were probably many and illogical (Collins, 1966).

The first civilizations in the Mediterranean area regulated and
supervised the slaughter and handling of meat-animals (Forrest ejt al. ,
1975). Both the slaughter and the marketing of meat were inspected in
ancient Athens and Rome, and the general marketing of food was
supervised by food inspectors in Athens. Jewish sacrificial animals
had to be perfect enough to be eaten by a priest, so priests naturally
became good judges of livestock. With time, the rabbis 1 authority
stretched to include all meat in Jewish communities (Collins, 1966).

In the eighth century, Pope St. Zachary forbade the consumption of
meat of animals ill with diseases that were considered dangerous to
humans. Beginning in 1162, laws passed in England, France, and Germany
banned the sale of meat from diseased animals. Some type of inspection
system has been in existence ever since (Collins, 1966).

Although the sale of contaminated and unwholesome meat has been an
offense in England since Anglo-Saxon times, the first relevant modern
acts of Parliament were not passed until 1835. In 1938. regulations

Food and Drugs Act, consolidating previously existing legislation
(Collins, 1966) .

During the colonial period in the United States meat inspection was
rudimentary and of little interest per se because the raising of
livestock and the marketing of food-animals were entirely local
enterprises. Animals slaughtered by local butchers were sold to
customers who could identify the product closely with the butcher and
probably even with the farmer who produced the animal (Forrest et al_ ,
1975). As the nation grew, and as transportation systems developed,
the physical distance between the producer and the purchaser
increased. Interstate commerce in meat developed 3 and the country
began to export meat to Europe.

In the early 1880s, the local press focused public attention on the
problems of quality and purity of food products sold for public
consumption, and some European countries, which regarded American meat
as inedible, began to restrict imports (Libby, 1975).

The federal government enacted the first meat inspection statute,
the Meat Inspection Act of 1890 (26 Stat. 414), to restore European
confidence in the quality of American beef (Libby, 1975) and to expand
the market for American meat by ensuring that exports met European
requirements (Olsson and Johnson, 1984). The act provided for limited
inspection of meat intended for export and did not concern itself with
the state of health of the source-animal. It did not attain its goals,
however, since many foreign governments still refused to recognize U.S.
inspection certificates (Olsson and Johnson, 1984).

In 1891 and again in 1895, Congress strengthened meat inspection.
The Federal Meat Inspection Act (P.L. 59-242) of 1906 called for
mandatory inspection of all meat and meat products moving in interstate
commerce. The act provided for antemortem and postmortem inspection of
cattle, hogs, sheep, and goats, and it established sanitary standards
within slaughter and processing facilities. It applied to meat and
meat products in all stages of processing and to the surroundings in
which livestock were slaughtered as well as the areas in which the meat
was processed in the 163 plants under federal inspection at that time.

The New York Live Poultry Commission Association began inspection
of live poultry after an outbreak of fowl plague (avian influenza) in
1924 (Libby, 1975), and by 1926 this was taken over by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (Olsson and Johnson, 1984). In 1928, USDA
added to its responsibilities the voluntary inspection, for
wholesomeness , of poultry and poultry products.

The events that led to the passage of the Federal Meat Inspection
Act, its amendments, and its extensions to poultry and quality
assurance are summarized in Table 2-1. Although meat inspection in the
United States was introduced to protect the nation 1 s interests in
exporting meat and meat products to European markets, the act increased
pressures within the country to keep contaminated meat out of food

channels and to make sure that slaughter and processing facilities were
sanitary. A meat inspection system based on continuous inspection at
slaughterhouses eventually developed as a tax-supported federal program.

As the nation became industrialized, the meat and poultry industry,
including the pastoral setting of farm animals, changed markedly
(Oltjen, 1984). Food-producing animals formerly grazed openly on
farmlands, often large, where they were affected by marginal diets,
predators, and exposure to the elements. With advances in animal and
veterinary science, many infectious diseases were controlled (Schell,
1984), and more healthful and nutritious animal feeds became
available. Improvements in animal health led to a severalfold increase
in animal production. As food-animals grew faster and as consumers'
tastes changed, the age at slaughter was reduced, so that age-related
diseases declined even further.

In general, production units have grown larger over time. Modern
technology provides vaccines against many infectious diseases as well
as growth promoters, hormones, and antibiotics in the feed. While the
human health hazards due to most zoonotic diseases have decreased,
hazards associated with the crowding of animals and exposure to
chemical residues have risen. Public health concerns therefore now
include chemical toxicity as well as infectious diseases, including
those caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria (Schell, 1984).

With the increase in some of the food-animal populations,
especially after the implementation of the Wholesome Meat Act (P.L.
90-201) of 1967 and the Wholesome Poultry Products Act (P.L. 90-492) of
1968, the number of slaughter and processing plants increased
tremendously from 163 in 1907 to almost 22,000 federal and state
plants in 1980. Furthermore, traditional organoleptic inspection
procedures (based on sight, touch, or smell) are inadequate to detect
chemical and microbial hazards. These factors have necessitated a
larger inspection force and more sophisticated inspection procedures,
but financial and technical limitations have impeded responses to
demands (Booz-Allen, 1977).

New information, new technology, and new health concerns have
severely tested the efficiency and adequacy of the present
labor-intensive inspection system, which was largely designed at the
turn of the century to protect consumers from meat with grossly visible
evidence of infectious hazards that were perceived at that time to be
problems. Today, eight broad classes of public health risk are of
concern in meat and poultry inspection: bacterial infections,
bacterial toxins, parasitic infections, fungal toxins, viral
infections, chemical residue toxicants, intentional additives, and
process-induced toxicants. In response, USDA has had to shift
regulatory strategies to improve various phases of the inspection
system and take advantage of newer technologies. (For a summary of the
implemented or proposed changes in the traditional inspection
procedures in slaughter and processing, see Tables 6-1 and 7-1.)

cu 1 E 4J

CU Cu 00 ""O CU d

E CO 4J CU d CUO4J CU

O 4J CO O 'rH 73 4J M

CO M CU 1 4-J ,M dO Cu

O M co o <u*E -H

>> Cu cO C04JCU4-J3

& X M ocu Cu docoicr

CU O X> -H M O CU CU

10 MH 73 d cu Cu >

CU J-l CUCU73 -H -^E H 00

4-J O "O O d rH CO E * rH C

3 MH 0> M 3 CO CUOd -H

4J M cu cu o E EoO'v^

H 4-J -H 70 CJ QJ CU 'H 60 O

4-1

4J CO 3 d MrH rHd4JCdCO

CO CU CTO OC03X) rHOOOO-HCu

d E cuo cja>4J O CO-HCU-HCO

H M dfHM CUCU4JC04-)

,jb

UH CU MH rH 3 Cu M-jMcoocuco

CO O d->-> OrHQ OOdCUCJCO

CU O CO *iH d *4-l rH Cu O

4-J

M 73 H4J4JCUMO 73 COM

3 1) 4JCO M4JOO CU' 1 OEdCU73

T? M CJM QCO<C73 MdCU'H C

CU 'rH QJCU O-4J CUCOHC04Jt4-|CO

4-1

CJ 3 Cu4J cocom cod 3 M73O

o cr we d o 3O crcuod ^co

M CU d-H cOco cj'H CU4JcOcoOOCU

Cu M *H Mco>^O4J McOcU CUd'H

d 4-J O M MH CO 4J 4J <* oO *H 4J

d d E'r-l MCO M dCOddC073*H

O O CU MCJ4J dCU O M CO O 4-J rH r- 1

H -H 4-J CO O CO <U O CU -H CU -H CO O -H

J-JCO 4-> M4J M-HO 4J4JCU4-J JUCJ

OM O OO 4-JtOCJ 4J Ud73OrH CO
CUCU CU E3 MCUCU dCU CU'HScUrH^U-)

Cu^cJ Cu 0)73 OcoCO CUCO CUrHCucOCJ

coo co 4JO P-co 4J3 coMaco Ono

d CO d d M bd CO ^\ -M O d O d C 4-J 4-J Ci

pL|

MCu 1 1 <CCu WCJ.-C} ^* rd 1 1 ' H *H H cO co CO

H I

=> '

> 4J

d d TO co co

O O CU rH CU

4J 4-J CO T3

O O H CD MH

CU 0) rH 73 O

0- Cu ,0 C M

CO CO CO CU 4J *H

M d d 4-J 4-J M CO

O -H 'H CO X O rH 4J

O 0) <D Cu O O

Cu CU M co d <J

4J O 0) 0) d *rH

OcO MH M MCO CO d

U3 S3 3M -^ O

cr a>4JC4-4J . H

d CU >^ CO CJ rH O r 1 TQJ 4J 73

4-J

O73M rHCU 3*H 3CU CD OCU

M-j

"HC04J H O4J O4J X! CUCO

4-JdCO COCu-HCJ rHcO 03 CUCO
d*H3 MCU M4_> H COCO

4-1

CU7373CUOOCUOpCO rH dCu
UJTOd CUrd <Jco <CM ,0 M

4Jd'HC04J d CU 3 s-**

COCO CO M-J-HMH4-J CU 4JOJ

t>N

4-J CO d O O d CO <j"

15 d CO CU-H -H CU CU CN

CO
4-J

CUOCU S J>%0)> rH SI

M-Hco M4JMM 00 ON

cirt

734J C04J COM COCU d rHtn

4-J

COCU CUCO 4JQ 4J> 3 CO
C04JJH MCU CUE CUO ^x-x M

4-J

r-l

CO-H4J OOE MCU MO MD CUnJ

ct)

73
3

CUd d Cj4-rCJ CUO73*
Mead OM-i CUd CUO JT.CTN CUP-*
PMCO-H OO COcO CO4J HtH fa ^

J-l
O

-U

d
cu

rrj

""O

C7N

P-<

O
O

4-J
CO
CU

O O rH 1/N, >sO VO
OO ON ON CT* O O
00 OO 00 OO ON ON

rH r | ,1 ,-H p-i rH

CD CO

r-l

O CD

V-l -H

CO JJ

CD JJ

CD CO

r*N

g *rH

r-l

JSj CD

r 1

C r-l

O -H

v-<

a o

r-l

>> d

r-l

O CO

T3 C!

V-t 60

CD *J-i

^ Vi

W J2

CD -H

JJ -H

rrj

V-i JJ

CD JJ

r-l CD

cO 60

4J r-l

r-l

3 "O

3 r-l

JJ d

V-4

r 1 3

O CD

T3 CD

O O

<j"

CO -H

O V-4

CU <4-l

M CO

<JH

O Cu

C *H

V-i CD

r-l

CD CO

CU JJ

r-l M

JJ CD

""O cr

r-l O

V-i

r-l

r 1

Tj "^3

d CD

CD 60

irH

CJ P

r-H

cfl M

V-i

CO CO

C2 CU

r-<

r-l

<J-I

* o

OO JJ

CD CO

r-i

rrj

V-4' r^

TJ CO

?* M

jj Jb

rp-J

ON 13

O r *x?

CD r-l

v$6

V-< CO

i i

r 1. CD

V-i

V-I CD

r-J

V-i

3 *"0

CU O

T) CO

H JJ

f^\

V-i

O CD

u-i d

CU JJ

CD -H

3 C

V-4

3 CD

CU M

O CD

CO CO

JJ CO

cr -H

O JJ

CO CO

r-i

r-l

CU ,

r-l

<J-i 3

JJ cO

TJ >

H ,>

r-l r-l

o cr

d T-I

<J-l 3

CO r-l

H >,

Cu i
M-4

O CO

CJ V^

C M

r-l

-H

V-I ON

TJ g

H CO

H "O

TJ CO

r4 CO

r-l

(D r-<

CD O

JJ CD

j_^

JJ JJ

JJ VT|

r-l CJ

O TJ

}_}

r-l

V-i IM

rrj

o o

JU M-l

a <J-4

O 3

CD CJ

CD 3

V-i

CU CD

V-i

V-I

CU TJ

Cu g

AJ O

CO JJ

cr no

co O

cO JJ

CO O

CJ >

CJ d

CD d

r-l

C< V-i

r-l O

C V-i

M -H

M CO

r-J

M CU

r-<

co <:

O CO

H
JJ

r-l
CJ

CO
g

V-i

V-< x-s

CU vO

V-i r*

r*"*

CD 1

}_<

ju m

4J r*"

r*^.

r*.

g r-3

r-I)

pection Act

CD
CO
CO

oducts Act

CD
JJ

V-i

<cj

J-i

x-s

rdJ

X N

/-N

rrj

X~N

sj-

r 1

-3h

fX,

r-l

r I

r-l

,_3

r- J

TJ
CD
O

O
M

d
o
u

r-l CO
CO CD

00
CO
ON

CN
<t
ON

oo
m

00
vO
ON

O
00
ON

When the Federal Meat Inspection Act was enacted in 1906, the
leading cause of human morbidity and mortality in this country was
infectious agents; the control of such diseases was, in general ,
amenable to centralized regulatory programs* Today , the two leading
causes of death in humans are circulatory disease and cancer (DHHS,
1984). These changes may have substantial implications for all public
health programs.

To date, no criteria have been established to measure
scientifically the effects of recent changes in the inspection system
on the health of consumers. The Centers for Disease Control has issued
reports addressing food-borne outbreaks in general, some traced to meat
and poultry sources (Bryan, 1980; see also Table 7-1). Polls taken by
the Roper Organization (1983) and the Good Housekeeping Institute
(1983) indicate that about 75% of the public believe that the USDA f s
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is doing a "good 11 to "very
good" job, versus 15% who label it fair, 4% poor, and 6% who had no
opinion. The General Accounting Office (GAO, 1982; U.S. Comptroller
General, 1979, 1981, 1983a,b) has assessed the management, regulation,
and compliance aspects of USDA/FSIS and has addressed the issues of
state-level inspection inadequacies, sanitation problems within plants,
meat import regulations, standards for mechanically separated meat and
poultry, and the effectiveness of Food and Drug Administration
guidelines in reducing the violative residues monitored by FSIS.

In a recent report, Booz, Allen & Hamilton (1977) evaluated the
inspection programs to improve cost-effectiveness and suggested ways to
streamline them. Inasmuch as those investigators found little evidence
that many of the procedures had measurable public health impact, they
believed that some changes could be made without adversely affecting
the public health aspects of the meat and poultry inspection system.

Justifiably or not, some of the recent changes in the meat and
poultry inspection programs in the United States have been perceived by
the public, consumer advocates, and inspection staff in the field as
compromising human health and safety (CNI, 1977; Hughes, 1983; Smith,
1983). Their concerns have centered on several issues, including the
rate at which slaughtered animals move through inspection, the
necessity and efficiency of 100% antemortem and postmortem inspection
of groups of animals that seem to be nearly uniformly healthy, the
actual health hazard presented by microbial contamination of the meat
and poultry supply, and the health effects of low-level contamination
of meat and poultry by pesticides, drugs, and environmental
contaminants. Some observers are further concerned that USDA has not
adopted newer technologies to provide information and feedback that
could improve the health of livestock and poultry or to address current
health hazards, both microbiological and toxic (NRC, 1984).

It was in the context of these concerns and the debate about public
health that the committee was asked by USDA/FSIS to review and evaluate
the scientific basis of meat and poultry inspection programs and the

extent of protection from human health risks it provides. The
committee's deliberations and conclusions on this key public policy
issue are reflected in the remainder of this report

REFERENCES

Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. 1977. Study of the Federal Meat and

Poultry Inspection Program . Vol. 1: Description of the Meat and
Poultry Inspection Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.

Bryan, F. L. 1980 . Foodborne diseases in the United States associated
with meat and poultry. J. Food Protect. 43s 140-150.

Collins, F. V. 1966. History of meat inspection. Pp. 7-12 in Meat
Inspection, Second revised edition. Rigby, Adelaide, Australia.

CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology). 1980. Foods
from Animals: Quantity, Quality and Safety. Report No. 82.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.

CNI (Community Nutrition Institute). 1977. Assessment of the Booz,
Allen and Hamilton, Inc., study and recommendations on a
reorganization of the meat and poultry inspection program.
Community Nutrition Institute, Washington, D.C.

DHHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 1984. Advance
Report of Final Mortality Statistics, 1981. Monthly Vital
Statistics Report 33(3) Suppl., National Center for Health
Statistics, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Washington, D.C.

Forrest, J. C., E. D. Aberle, H. B. Hedrick, M. D. Judge, and

R. A. Merkel. 1975. Meat inspection. Pp. 316-319 in Principles
of Meat Science. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.

GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 1982. Changes Underway to
Correct Inadequacies in Florida's Meat and Poultry Inspection
Program. Report to the Honorable Lawton Chiles, U.S. Senate.
GAO /RCED-8 3-70. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

Good Housekeeping Institute. 1983. Food Labeling Study. Consumer
Research Department, Good Housekeeping Institute, New York.

Hughes, K. 1983. Return to the Jungle: How the Reagan Administration
is Imperiling the Nation's Meat and Poultry Inspection Program.
Center for Study of Responsive Law, Washington, D.C.

Libby, J. A. 1975. History. Pp. 1-15 in Meat Hygiene, Fourth
edition. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia.

NRG (National Research Council). 1984, Transcript of Public Meeting.
Committee on the Scientific Basis for Meat and Poultry Inspection
Programs, Food and Nutrition Board, Commission on Life Sciences,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Olsson, P. C., and D. R. Johnson* 1984* Meat and poultry inspections
Wholesomeness, integrity and productivity* Pp. 220-241 in Food and
Drug Law Institute, ed. Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Commemorative
Volume of Food and Drug Law. Food and Drug Law Institute,
Washington, D.C.

Oltjen, R. R. 1984. Future Directions for the Care and Handling of
Food Animals. Paper presented at the Second Century of Animal
Health and Well -Being Seminar and Ceremony. May 29, 1984.
Washington, D.C. U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Agricultural
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Clay Center,
Nebraska .

Roper Organization, Inc. 1983. Postal service most favored of federal
departments. P. 2 in Roper Reports, Summary of 83-5. Roper
Organization, New York.

Schell, 0. 1984. Modern Meat. Random House, New York.
Sinclair, Jr., U. B. 1906. The Jungle. Doubleday, New York.

U.S. Comptroller General. 1979. Problems in Preventing the Marketing
of Raw Meat and Poultry Containing Potentially Harmful Residues.
Report to the Congress. HRD-79-10. U.S. General Accounting Office,
Washington, D.C.

U.S. Comptroller General. 1981. Improving Sanitation and Federal

Inspection at Slaughter Plants: How to Get Better Results for the
Inspection Dollar. Report to the Congress. CED-81-118. U.S.
General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Comptroller General. 1983a. Federal Regulation of Meat and

Poultry Products Increased Consumer Protection and Efficiencies
Needed. Report to the Congress. GAO/RCED-83-68 . U.S. General
Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Comptroller General. 1983b. Improved Management of Import Meat

Inspection Program Needed. Report to the Congress. GAO/RCED-83-81.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

Public Health Hazards
from Biological Agents

Meat-borne and poultry-borne pathogens that can be transmitted to
humans pose health hazards to consumers and occupationally exposed
persons that the current inspection strategies are not primarily
designed to detect (Bryan , 1980; Horwitz and Gangarosa, 1976). Table
3-1 summarizes data on reported food-borne disease outbreaks in the
United States for 1968-1980. Table 3-2 classifies the pathogenic
microorganisms associated with various meat- and poultry-borne diseases ,
along with their modes of transmission.

Meat and poultry were implicated in 1,420 of the 2,666 food-borne
disease outbreaks reported to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) from
1968 to 1977 for which a food source was determined (Bryan, 1980).
(An outbreak is defined as an incident in which two or more persons
experience a similar illness, usually gastrointestinal, after ingesting
a common food, which through epidemiological analysis is implicated as
the source of illness; for botulism, the illness of one person is
considered an outbreak [DHHS, 1983bj.) The reported data are likely to
represent only a small fraction of the true incidence of food-borne
disease in the United States, and short-term trend analysis is therefore
uncertain (Hauschild and Bryan, 1980; NRC, 1969).

When a contaminated food product is widely distributed and eaten at
different times and places, outbreaks may be difficult to detect. This
is particularly true of diseases for which there is no epidemiological
marker (e.g., serotyping), so that strains recovered from ill persons
and from foods cannot be compared. Outbreaks of Clostridium perfringens
enteritis, for example, probably go undetected. And pasteurized foods
may still harbor spores that can germinate and multiply if they are
subjected to time-temperature abuse. Certain pathogens (e.g.,
Salmonella, Campylobacter jejuni, and Clostridium perfringens ) are
spread to carcasses and cuts of meat or to parts of poultry from
infected tissues or contaminated surfaces of animals during slaughtering
and processing, and they are then conveyed through further-processed raw
meat and raw poultry into food-service establishments and homes.
Cross-contamination may continue and other foods mav become contaminated

TABLE 3-1 Meat- or Poultry-Borne Outbreaks of Known Etiology,
United States , 1968-1980 a

Disease Beef

Other Meat
Pork Lamb Poultry Products

TOTAL

Distribu-
bution (%)

Bacillus cereus 2

1 21

0.7

gastroenteritis
or enteritis

Botulism 6

1 3 10

2.4

Campylobacter jejuni
enteritis or
enterocolitis

1 1

0.2

Glostridium perf ringens 100

92 40 17

168

20.2

enteritis

Escherichia coli 2

0.2

diarrhea

Hepatitis A
diarrhea

1 2

0.4

Salmonellosis 63

34 85 16

198

23.8

Shigellosis

3 2

0.6

Staphylococcal 37
intoxication

163 2 67 24

293

35.2

Toxoplasmosis 1

0.1

Trichinosis 10

102 11

123

14.8

TOTAL 221

311 4 201 84

821

100.0

% of TOTAL 27

38 1 24 10

100

a Data from Bryan, 1980; DHHS, 1981a,b, 1983a.

TABLE 3-2 Classification of Worldwide Meat-borne and Poultry-borne
Microbial Pathogens According to Modes of Transmission

Pathogenic microorganisms transmissible to humans by ingestion of raw or
undercooked meat and poultry:

Bacillus aathracis Sarcocystis spp.

Balantidium coli Taenia saginata

Campylobacter coli Taenia solium

Campylobacter fetus subsp. fetus Toxoplasma gondii

Campylobacter jejuni Trichinella spiralis

Escherichia coli Yersinia enterocolitica

Francis ella tularensis Yersinia pseudotuberculosis
Salmonella

Pathogenic microorganisms transmissible to humans by ingestion of
cooked or otherwise heat-processed meat or poultry that became
contaminated after the heat processing or that was improperly stored after
initial heat processing:

Any of the above Shigella spp.

Bacillus cereus S taphylococcus aureus

Clostridium botulinum Streptococcus pyogenes
Clostridium perfringens

Pathogenic microorganisms transmissible by contact with aaimal tissue or
by inhalation of aerosols or dust from animals:

Bacillus anthracis Leptospira

Brucella Listeria monocytogenes

Chlamydia psittaci Newcastle virus

Cowpox virus Pseudomotias mallei

Coxiella burnetii Streptococcus pyogenes
Erysipelothrix rhus iopathiae Toxoplasma gondii

Francisella tularensis

Other bacteria sometimes on meat and poultry that have been reported to
be pathogens but for which proof is lacking that meat and poultry are
vehicles :

Aeromorias Plesiomonas shigelloides

Bacillus licheniformis Proteus

Citrobacter Providencia

Klebsiella Streptococcus fae calls

Streptococcus faecium

perfringens and Bacillus cereus, are spore-formers ; they can survive
cooking and can then germinate and multiply if the foods they commonly
contaminate are subsequently mishandled.

Although the final abuse that leads to outbreaks mostly occurs
after the food has been processed, many outbreaks would not have ensued
if the pathogen were not already on the meat or poultry after
slaughtering or processing. Outbreaks rarely result from direct
inoculation of contaminants by food handlers at the point of
preparation or serving. Thus, slaughtering plants and meat and poultry
processors must share some of the responsibility for outbreaks that
occur both in homes and food processing establishments. Yet the
contaminating microorganisms enter the slaughtering plants in or on the
live animals, and no inspection procedures are specifically directed
toward these organisms.

INFECTIOUS AGENTS AND MODES OF TRANSMISSION

Illnesses due to infectious agents from food-animals can be divided
into three major groups: enteric diseases from agents that reside in
the digestive tract of food-animals; extraintestinal illnesses from
food-borne infectious agents; and diseases transmitted to workers by
handling food-animals and animal products (occupational diseases).

Enteric Agents

Enteric bacterial infectious agents are primarily health hazards
for the consuming public; less commonly, they are occupational hazards
in the meat packing industry. The major agents are Salmonella,
Campylobacter spp., and Clostridium perfringens (Bryan, 1980).

Salmonella remains a major health problem and economic burden.
Trends in reported cases of salmonellosis among the general public are
shown in Figure 3-1. As indicated, the number of reported isolates of
Salmonella from human beings in the United States has increased in the
past 20 years, reaching 44,250 reported isolates in 1983 (DHHS,
1983c). Of the 568 outbreaks of food-borne diseases reported to CDC in
1981, 250 had a confirmed etiology; Salmonella was the single most
frequent cause, accounting for 66 (26.4%) of the outbreaks (DHHS,
1983b). These 66 outbreaks were reported to have affected 2,456
persons, 11 of whom died. (Preliminary data for 1982 indicate a
similar pattern of etiology.) A previous study of 500 outbreaks of
salmonellosis that occurred from 1966 to 1975 showed that meat and
poultry sources accounted for 30% (DHEW, 1977).

Studies of the ecology of Salmonella clearly establish the animals
(genetic stock), feed and feed ingredients, and environmental sources
.as critical points at which to control for the hazard of Salmonella
during livestock and poultry production (Barnum, 1977; Bryan et al. ,
1976; NRC, 1969). As with all the other enteric bacteria, monitoring

SALMONELLOSIS

REPORTED CASES PER 100,000 POPULATION BY YEAR
UNITED STATES, 1955-1983

RATE
20

15 -

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

1955

1985

YEAR

FIGURE 3-1 Salmonellosis (excluding typhoid fever) reported cases
per 100,000 population, by year, United States, 1955-
1983. From CDC, 1984.

the public-health-related critical control points during the slaughter
process involves careful cleaning and removal of external surfaces
(skin, feathers) and especially the digestive tract to prevent
contamination of edible tissues. Even salmonellae not adapted to hosts
can cause clinically apparent disease in livestock and poultry,
including septicemia and acute or chronic enteritis, but most
infections of slaughter-age animals are subclinical (Blood et al. ,
1983). Thus antemortem inspection is of little value in identifying
and removing infected animals from the human food supply. Prevention
of fecal contamination of edible tissues is a critical control point in
the programs of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) for
preventing enteric disease.

Because antimicrobial-resistant salmonellae account for a steadily
increasing proportion of salmonellosis in the United States, and

because most outbreaks of resistant salmonellosis are traced to
food-animal sources (Holmberg t al_ . , 1984), the importance of reducing
the Salmonella burden in the U.S. meat supply has become increasingly
obvious . Clear ly, current antemortem and postmortem inspection
practices to identify salmonellae are less than adequate*

From 1980 to 1982 , meat and poultry accounted for 4 out of 23
outbreaks of food-borne campylobacteriosis reported to CDC, second only
to unpasteurized milk as a source of Campy 1 ob ac t er jejuni in the United
States (Finch and Blake , 1984). A recent study in the Seattle/King
County area of Washington identified consumption of poultry as a
significant risk factor for acquiring infection by C^ jejuni
(Seattle-King County Department of Public Health, 1984). In
hospital-based studies of diarrheal disease in humans , . jejuni has
surpassed Salmonella as the most commonly isolated bacterial enteric
pathogen (Blaser et^ jLU , 1979 , 1983), Because surveillance of
campylobacteriosis is in its infancy and routine reporting of this
disease is not yet required, data on disease prevalence among the
public cannot be used to study trends or to assess the impact of meat
inspection on public health.

C.- jejuni appears to be a cause of hepatitis in poultry and may be
a cause of diarrhea in many domestic species and of mastitis in cows
(Campbell and Cookingham, 1978; Firehamraer and Myers , 1981; Garcia et
al., 1983; Lander and Gill, 1979; Logan et_ aU , 1982). Many reports
identify large numbers of healthy carriers among food-animals (Butzler
and Skirrow, 1979; Garcia e_t al . , 1983; Grant et_ a]^. , 1980; Munroe et
al . , 1983). For example, up to 40% of healthy cattle have enteric
cultures positive for Campy lobacter spp. (Martin a_l. > 1983). .
jejuni has been isolated from between 2% and 85% of consumer-ready
poultry (Christopher lt al., 1982; Doyle, 1981; Kinde ^t al_. , 1983;
Leuchtefeld and Wang, 1981; Simmons and Gibbs, 1979; Smith and Muldoon,
1974). . jejuni is less of a public health hazard than it might be
because the microorganisms tend not to multiply in food at room
temperatures (Skirrow, 1982), although it can survive on chilled
carcasses for months (Oosterom et^ aj^. , 1983). Since antemortem and
postmortem inspection can rarely identify Campy lobacter spp. -infected
food-animals, prevention of carcass contamination by fecal matter is a
critical control point, as it is for salmonellosis.

From 1968 to 1977, Clostridium perfringens caused 139 of the 250
outbreaks reported to CDC (Bryan, 1980). Food-borne surveil-
lance data for 1981 indicate that there were 185 outbreaks with
confirmed bacterial etiology (DHHS, 1983b); . perfringens caused 11%
of the reported outbreaks and 1,162 illnesses. Clinical signs of
illness in domestic animals and grossly visible lesions are not
features of intestinal carriage of these organisms, so a major function
of meat inspection regarding this enteric disease, as for Salmonella
and Campylobacter spp. 5 is to prevent fecal contamination of edible
tissues .

Outbreaks involving Escherichla coli are less likely to be
confirmed than are those involving Salmonella , Campylobac t er spp., or
Clostridium perf ringens , because E. coli is often not considered in
clinical, epidemiological, and laboratory investigations (DHHS,
1983b). In 1982, however, two outbreaks of food-borne disease due to
infection by E. coli were identified, due to the unusual nature of the
clinical disease and serotype of E. coli (Riley jet al . , 1983)* In
these outbreaks, IS. coli was isolated from patient stools and from the
epidemiologically associated ground beef, and the outbreaks were
attributed to undercooked hamburger* Although it was previously known
that E. coli could be transmitted by food (Merson et^ al . , 1980),
serotypes of E. coli not known to be enterotoxigenic or invasive were
not investigated until these outbreaks occurred, because IS. coli
commonly present in food are nonpathogenic.

The possible development of antibiotic-resistant strains of
bacteria resulting from these feed additives and the subsequent
transfer of such resistant bacteria to humans are matters of public
health concern (Levy, 1984; Meister and Greenberg, 1983). It has been
shown that feeding subtherapeutic levels of antibiotics to
food-producing animals can promote development of bacteria resistant to
antimicrobials. Bacterial resistance to tetracycline was increased in
feedlot heifers given subtherapeutic quantities of chlortetracycline in
their diet (Stabler eit al . , 1982), and prolonged excretion of resistant
coliforms has been documented in swine fed a number of antimicrobials
in subtherapeutic amounts (Langlois t aJL . , 1978a,b). In a study of
Salmonella isolates from food-producing animals in 1973, for example,
70% of the isolates were found to be resistant to at least 1 of 11
antimicrobials tested, and resistance patterns of Salmonella isolates
from animals were noted to be similar to those demonstrated for
isolates from humans (Neu <et al. , 1975). A more recent study
documented multiple drug resistance in 80% of 3,500 isolates of
Salmonella from food-producing animals (Blackburn eslt al. , 1984).

If resistant bacteria do occur in the intestinal tract of
food-producing animals, and if the antimicrobial resistance of the
intestinal flora is increased by feeding subtherapeutic amounts of
antibiotics to these animals, can the resistant bacteria isolated from
humans have a food-animal source? Experimental data demonstrate that
direct contact with chickens infected by antibiotic-resistant
Escherichia coli (Levy eft al. , 1976) and contact with contaminated
poultry carcasses, as in food preparation (Linton et. al. , 1977),
resulted in the spread of resistant bacteria to humans. There are also
epidemiological observations suggesting that meat and poultry can be
sources of antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella infections in humans
(Holmberg t al. , 1984a) . An investigation of a four-state outbreak of
multiply resistant Salmonella newport provided strong circumstantial
evidence of resistant bacteria carried to consumers from food-producing
animals fed subtherapeutic antibiotics (Holmberg et al., 1984b).

The investigation of the S. newport outbreak also demonstrated the
inherent difficulty in documenting retrospectively the animal source of
bacteria when investigating an outbreak of illness in humans* Although
each step in the transmission of enteric flora from animals to the
digestive tract of humans has been studied, documenting all the links
in the chain in a single investigation is usually difficult, and often
impossible. The presence of Salmonella in ground beef cannot be
documented after all the beef has been consumed, nor can the levels of
antibiotics fed be defined precisely when no records are kept. The
difficulties of conducting an ethically acceptable experimental
prospective study have been noted (Stallones, 1982) by the chairman of
the National Research Council committee that studied the effects on
human health of the sub therapeutic use of antimicrobials in animal
feeds (NRG, 1980).

Extraintestinal Agents

Extraintestinal agents include Trichinella spiralis , Cysticercus
spp. , Clostridium botulinum, Staphylococcus aur eus , and Toxoplasma
gondii Diseases such as shigellosis and hepatitis A have human
reservoirs; they are transmitted through contamination of foods by
human feces. Epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory studies suggest
that viruses and rickettsia that might cause significant outbreaks of
human disease can be transmitted through food. In the United States,
however, there is no evidence that meat and poultry production are
vehicles for these agents (Blackwell, 1980, 1984; Blackwell t al. , in
press; DHEW, 1965).

There have been several reports of food-borne transmission of
toxoplasmosis (CDC, 1975; Desmonts, 1965; Kean, 1969; Masur, 1978), a
disease commonly caused by the protozoan parasite Toxoplasma gondii .
The population samples were quite small, however, and information on
the source of the infectious agent was frequently lacking. Studies
have shown that there is a greater prevalence of antibodies against
Toxoplasma gondii in meat handlers than in controls (Beverley el: al. ,
1954; Price, 1969), and these persons may therefore be at a greater
risk of infection than the general population. Because of the life
cycle and pathogenesis of T,. gondii , the risk to public health can be
mimimized by protecting livestock from cat feces during production.

Trichinosis has long been recognized as a meat-borne hazard. It
now infects an estimated 0.1% of hogs in the United States, although it
was previously more prevalent (Leighty, 1974). In humans, it has been
associated with ingestion of undercooked pork, including hamburger and
ground lamb contaminated with pork (CDC, 1980, 1982a; Potter et al.,
1976). One hundred of the 689 meat-borne and poultry-borne outbreaks
with known etiology reported to CDC from 1968 to 1977 were due to
Trichinella spiralis (Bryan, 1980). The incidence of trichinosis in
the United States is likely to remain stable or to decline if consumers
continue to be educated about hazards associated with undercooked pork
and pork products.

Cysticercosis somatic infection by Taenia solium (pork tapeworm)
is uncommon in people born in the United States but it is found in
immigrants from Latin America and parts of Southeast Asia and Africa
(Hird and Pullen, 1979). After encysted raw or inadequately cooked
pork is eaten, eggs hatch in the small intestine of a human and larvae
can migrate to distant sites, causing a potentially fatal illness.
Tapeworm eggs can further be spread to other people or to swine by
exposure to the feces of a person harboring an adult worm. By
preventing swine access to human feces , T_ solium transmission has been
essentially eliminated in the United States in this century (Hird and
Pullen, 1979). In fiscal year 1984, of 80 million swine slaughtered
only 4 were condemned for Cysticercus cellulosae infection.

Cysticercosis due to Taenia saginata in beef (beef measles)
continues to be a problem in industrial countries such as the United
States. This infection is seen primarily in feedlot cattle in the
Southwest. It should not be viewed as a strictly regional problem,
however, due to the movement of animals and meat within the country.
Incisions into muscles followed by visual observation of cysticerci in
slaughtered animals by meat inspectors is the most practical and widely
used method of detection presently available. Muscles of mastication
and the heart are probably prime targets for T. saginata
Cysticercosis. Postmortem inspection for detection of T. saginata
Cysticercosis lacks sensitivity. For example, cattle frequently harbor
only a few cysticerci, and current inspection procedures may miss many
light infections (Hird and Pullen, 1979). In fiscal year 1983, out of
36 million cattle inspected, 86 were condemned for Cysticercus bovis
infection and 6,226 less severely affected carcasses were passed for
freezing.

From 1977 to 1981, there were 131 outbreaks of staphylococcal food
poisoning reported to CDC, involving 7,126 persons (Holmberg and Blake,
1984). Most often, outbreaks are attributed to a cooked, high-
protein food that is contaminated during handling and then left at room
temperature for too long (Bergdall, 1979; Bryan, 1978; Merson et al. ,
1980). Prevention of much staphylococcal food poisoning can best be
achieved through good consumer and food-handler education.

Occupational Infectious Diseases

Slaughterhouse employees and inspectors represent a small
proportion of the general population in the United States. The
diseases that can be associated with these occupations may occur as
outbreaks (e.g., of brucellosis and psittacosis) or as sporadic cases
(e.g., of erysipeloid, streptococcosis, or leptospirosis) in persons
exposed to meat and poultry production, slaughter, and processing
environments. Contagious pustular dermatitis (e.g., ecthyma
contagiosum or orf ) and superficial mycoses occur among packing plant
workers; outbreaks of Q-fever have been reported in rendering plant
employees and the disease can occur in meat packers (Topping et al.,
1947). Toxoplasmosis, salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis , and dermal

infections by streptococci (Clifton-Hadley, 1983) and other bacteria
(CDC, 1977; Public Health Laboratory Service , 1983) can also be
occupationally acquired . Some low-prevalence diseases , such as
anthrax, listeriosis, and rabies , are of less concern in this country ,
but their diagnostic clinical presentation and the lack of grossly
visible lesions are useful to demonstrate the value of proper
antemortem inspection*

Brucellosis is a zoonotic infection transmitted by direct contact
with diseased animals, aerosol exposure, conjunctival exposure, or
ingestion of contaminated material (Buchanan e al_. , 1974; Kaufmann et
al. , 1980)* The brucellosis eradication program, with its dependence
on slaughtering infected livestock, has transformed brucellosis from a
community-based disease to an occupational illness of slaughterhouse
employees, a situation that is likely to persist until brucellosis is
eradicated from cattle and hogs. Of the 2,302 cases of brucellosis
reported in the United States from 1965 to 1974, 1,073 (52%) occurred
in employees of the meat processing industry (Fox and Kaufmann, 1977).

Chlamydia psittaci can be transmitted to humans by direct contact
with infected poultry or by inhalation of dust from their droppings
(Schachter and Dawson, 1978). In 1983, there were 142 cases of
psittacosis reported to CDC (CDC, 1984). From 1975 to 1977, 26 (12%)
of the 219 reported patients in the United States for whom occupation
was known were employees of turkey slaughtering plants. Cases tend to
occur in widely separated outbreaks, and control of psittacosis in
turkeys and turkey processors has been difficult to achieve (Anderson
t al, 1978; CDC, 1982b; Durf ee et^ al. , 1975). Since gross lesions of
psittacosis in turkeys resemble those of many other septicemias, they
are difficult to identify with certainty.

MINIMIZING RISKS AFTER MEAT AND POULTRY ARE PROCESSED

Additional risks to public health can exist after meat and poultry
products are shipped from processing plants. Carcasses and bulk items
may be subjected to contamination in transit or in storage facilities,
although this is rarely a problem for packaged products because their
integrity is protected. Temperature abuse, however, is a more serious
problem. Chilled and processed meat and poultry products that are not
shelf-stable will eventually spoil. In retail outlets (e.g., butcher
shops, grocery stores, or meat departments of supermarkets), raw meat
and raw poultry are important sources of Salmonella, Campy lobacter
jejuni, Yersinia enterocolitica, Clostridium perfringens, and
Staphylococcus aureus. Cross-contamination is likely to occur among
raw items and perhaps between raw and cooked foods if rotisseries or
deli operations are nearby.

Further cross -contamination occurs as raw foods bring pathogens
into food-service establishments and homes (DeWit et^ aK , 1979). These
pathogens are spread by workers who handle raw and then cooked foods,

or by equipment used or cleaning cloths that go from raw to cooked
products*

The major contributing factors to outbreaks of food-borne diseases
in food-service establishments and homes are leaving cooked foods at
room temperature , storing cooked foods in large containers during
refrigerated storage, and preparing food a day or more before serving
it (Bryan, 1978, 1980). Other frequently identified contributory
factors are inadequate cooking, inadequate reheating, improper hot
holding, contamination by colonized (infected) persons, and
cross-contamination and inadequate cleaning of equipment (e.g., cutting
boards, knives, slicers, grinders, table tops, and storage pans). A
summary of the epidemiological data on factors that contribute to
outbreaks of meat- and poultry-borne diseases is given in Table 3-3.

The precautions that can be taken to avoid these hazards include:

washing hands after handling raw meat and raw poultry or when
returning to work stations;

being aware of cross-contamination from raw meat and raw poultry
via hands, utensils, equipment, table tops, sponges, and
cleaning cloths;

cooking poultry and meat thoroughly;

% not keeping cooked meat and poultry at room temperature for long
periods ;

cooling rapidly in shallow containers any leftovers and any food
prepared for consumption on subsequent days; and

reheating any leftovers thoroughly.

This information may be conveyed through the mass media, consumer
groups, extension services, and schools. The committee recognizes that
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) already has programs for
educating the public, and it encourages the agency to continue and
intensify its efforts in this area.

In addition to inspection and to identifying and monitoring
critical control points, several measures can be taken to minimize
public health hazards and spoilage risks. Although the details of
these measures are beyond the charge of this committee, they are
briefly mentioned because, along with inspection, they are essential to
food safety.

Surveillance is an indispensable part of every successful disease
control program. Food-borne disease surveillance consists of seeking

notification of illness 3 identifying and investigating outbreaks <>
interpreting investigative data,, and disseminating findings (Bryan et
al e 3 1976)0 The primary purpose of surveillance is to provide a basis
for recommending actions to identify and control existing outbreaks and
establish procedures to prevent future ones* In time^ surveillance
data become the basis for implicating principal vehicles of
transmission and identifying the primary factors that contribute to the
occurrence of outbreaks. These epidemiological data can be used to
design control measures^ identify critical control points ^ and set
program priorities,,

Microbiological and chemical analyses of samples of ingredients and
materials, final products > and swabs of equipment surfaces can assist
in assessing hazards > establishing and monitoring critical control
points, and determining adherance to good manufacturing^ handling.,
cleaning^ and distribution practices. Rapid diagnostic procedures have
been developed to identify various microbial agents (Firstenberg-Eden,

TABLE 3-3 Factors that Contributed to Outbreaks of Meat-Borne and
Poultry-Borne Diseases, 1968-1977 a

Contributing
Factor

Outbreaks
with Defi-
Confirmed Suspected Total ciency b (%)

Improper cooling of cooked foods

Prepared a day or more before serving 30

Inadequate cooking or thermal 14

processing

Infected person touching cooked food 16
Inadequate reheating of cooked and

chilled foods 18

Improper hot storage of cooked foods 16
Cross-contamination of cooked foods

by raw foods 9

Inadequate cleaning of equipment 9

Ingesting raw products 4

Use of leftovers 3

Improper fermentation 1

Improper thawing of cooked foods 1

Inadequate processing/prepara- 1

tion space

Abscess on meat 1

Feeding animals mercury-treated grain 1
Eating animals that were sick or

dying at slaughter 1

4
1
3

42
30
24

18
17

13
10
7
3
1
1
1

1
1

48
34
27

20
19

15
11
8
3
1
1
1

1
1

a From Bryan, 1980.

b Total exceeds 100 because more than one deficiency was frequently found.

1983; Olgaard, 1977; Seawright et al. , 1981; van Schothorst and
Oosterom, 1984) and criteria for certain microorganisms in some foods
have been established or recommended (ICMSF, 1974) * The value and use
of microbiological criteria for foods are the subjects of another
National Research Council report (NRC, 1984).

Microbiological hazards in foods that have passed inspection have
been well documented. In terms of acute disease , food-borne infections
and intoxication appear to pose greater health hazards than foods
contaminated by pesticide residues, food additives, chemical toxicants,
and natural toxic substances (WHO/ICMSF, 1982). In part, this relates
to the fact that some microbiological contaminants have the ability to
multiply in foods. However, just as the lag time (incubation period)
of a few days between ingestion of food and the onset of an infectious
food-borne disease makes it difficult to implicate a food as the
vehicle in a specific event, the much greater lag time (latency period)
before the expression of chronic disease after ingestion of a toxicant
makes documentation of this association very complex.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Salmonella infections remain a major health problem and an economic
burden. A considerable number of food-borne outbreaks of salmonellosis
stem from the consumption of contaminated meat and poultry products,
and these accounted for 30% of the Salmonella-related outbreaks from
1966 to 1975.

Salmonella and other enteric bacterial pathogens, such as
Campylobacter jejuni, Clostridium perf ringens , and Escherichia coli,
originate in the digestive tract and fecal material of the slaughtered
animal; inappropriate or ineffective slaughter procedures result In the
contamination of the surfaces of meat and poultry products with these
infectious agents. Infectious agents of nonenteric origin that have
been Implicated in food-borne diseases of meat and poultry origin
include Toxoplasma gondii , Trichinella spiralis , Cysticercus spp. , and
Clostridium botulinum* Toxins from molds and other microorganisms,
such as aflatoxin B^, also have potential health implications for the
consumer of meat and poultry products. Minimizing or eliminating
potentially infectious enteric bacteria can be achieved by careful
cleaning and removal of the external surfaces (skin, hair, feathers) of
the slaughtered animal, and removal of digestive tracts in such a
manner as to prevent contamination of edible tissues. Another
important consideration is the cross-contamination of infectious agents
from raw meat and poultry products to other foods in the home or in
commercial kitchens.

Procedures on safely handling and processing meat and poultry
products in the kitchen are well established and should be reemphasized
to the public through appropriate educational vehicles. Among these
procedures is the proper cooking of pork and pork products at the
appropriate time and temperature to destroy the Trichinella organism, a

procedure that needs to be reinforced. Unless techniques are used in
the United States to determine the presence of Trichinella spiralis in
pork, pork products should be cooked thoroughly in order to prevent
trichinosis*

Other points of consideration with regard to food-borne infectious
agents of biological origin include the fact that the presence of
pathogens in an animal cannot be detected by the usual organoleptic
inspection procedures. Some diseased animals might be identified during
antemortem inspection, but the detection becomes more unlikely after an
animal has been slaughtered. The presence of infectious agents might be
detected in the carcass, however, by rapid, immunologically based
tests* Another concern is that microbial organisms contaminating meat
and poultry products, unlike chemical residues, can multiply to increase
the probability of disease. Thus proper handling, processing, and
storage are required to inhibit bacterial growth or to destroy infective
organisms. Surveillance of outbreaks is of utmost importance in order
to determine, if possible, the causative agent responsible for an
outbreak, the principal vehicle of transmission, and the factors that
contributed to the outbreak.

In addition to worrying about the health of the consumer, there is
also concern about diseases that can be acquired by employees and
inspectors of slaughter and processing plants. These occupational
diseases occur in low incidence but are obviously of importance.
Outbreaks and sporadic cases in exposed individuals have occurred.

The committee recognizes that Salmonella and C ampy 1 ob a c t e r spp. are
major causative agents of diseases transmissible through the consumption
of meat and poultry products, but it concludes that it is virtually
impossible to detect these organisms with current inspection methods.
Moreover, it realizes that the USDA is both aware of and concerned about
this problem and recommends that the agency intensify its efforts to
implement procedures (see Chapters 5, 6, and 7) that reduce
contamination by these microorganisms and destroy them during
processing. Other organisms that constitute food-borne pathogens should
be similarly reduced. Since some of the biological hazards that have
been discussed do not constitute a major risk to public health because
of low exposure or infrequent occurrence, the committee has not made
specific recommendations for them. Furthermore, reliable information
regarding the public health hazard from exposure to biological hazards
such as mycotoxins is not available.

The public and food-industry workers should be provided with
information about hazards associated with improper handling of meat and
poultry and practical measures to prevent these hazards. The committee
encourages USDA to expand its public education efforts and to continue
preparing packets of information (e.g., literature, films, and slides)
for teachers and educational institutions, health care providers,
extension services, and the general public.

The committee recommends that FSIS expand its use of epidemiology
as a tool for internal review and for evaluating the public health
impact of changes in meat and poultry inspection programs . Observations
made during antemortem and postmortem inspections should be tabulated,
collated, and computerized to make them available to local
veterinarians j health authorities, extension services, farm groups , and
USDA epidemiologists. Information confirming diagnoses based on
specimens submitted from slaughter establishments should be provided to
the epidemiologist from the pathology, microbiology , and toxicology
units so the data will be presented in an epidemiologically relevant
manner* Epidemiologists are in a unique position to coordinate the
activities of other disciplines within the science staff of USDA and to
improve the usefulness of their activities.

FSIS should review the available rapid diagnostic procedures that
identify various microbial agents and evaluate their applicability to
meat and poultry inspection programs.

Further recommendations that relate to control of biological agents
are cited at the end of Chapter 7.

REFERENCES

Anderson, D. C., P. A. Stoesz, and A. F. Kaufmann. 1978. Psittacosis
outbreak in employees of a turkey-processing plant. Am. J.
Epidemiol. 107:140-148.

Barnum, D. A., ed. 1977. Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Salmonella and Prospects for Control, June 8-11, 1977.
University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.

Bergdoll, M. S. 1979. Staphlococcal intoxications. Pp. 444-490 in
H. Riemann and F. L. Bryan, eds. Food-borne Infections and
Toxications. Food Science and Technology Series. Academic Press,
New York.

Beverley, J. K. A., C. P. Beattie, and C. Roseman. 1954. Human
toxoplasma infection. J. Hyg. 52:37-46.

Blackburn, B. 0., L. K. Schlater, and M. R. Swanson. 1984. Antibiotic
resistance of members of the genus Salmonella isolated from chickens,
turkeys, cattle, and swine in the United States during October 1981
through September 1982. Am. J. Vet. Res. 45:1245-1249.

Blackwell, J. H. 1980. Internationalism and survival of foot-and-mouth
disease virus in cattle and food products. J. Dairy Sci.
63:1019-1030.

Blackwell, J. H. 1984. Foreign animal disease agent survival in animal
products: Recent developments. J* Am. Vet. Med. Assoc.
184:674-679.

Blackwell, J. H. , D. 0. Oliver, J. J. Callis, N. D. Heidelbaugh, E. P.
Larkin, P. D* McKerchen, and D. W* Thayer. In press* Foodborne
viruses: Their importance and need for research* J. Food Protect*

Blaser, M* J., I. D. Berkowitz, Mo LaForce, J. Cravens, L. B* Reller,
and W.-L. L. Wang* 1979 . Gampylobacter enteritis: Clinical and
epidemiologic features* Ann* Int. Med* 91:179-185.

Blaser, M J., Jo G. Wells, R, A. Feldman, R. A. Pollard^ J* R. Allen^
and the Collaborative Diarrheal Disease Study Group* 1983 .
Campylobacter enteritis in the United States: A multicenter study.
Ann. Into Medo 98:360-365.

Blood, Do C^ 0* Mo Radostits, and J. A* Henderson. 1983. Pp 576-590
in Veterinary Medicine, Sixth edition* BailliSre Tindall, London.

Bryan, F. L* 1978. Factors that contribute to outbreaks of foodborne
disease. J* Food Protect. 41:816-827.

Bryan, F. L. 1980. Foodborne diseases in the United States associated
with meat and poultry. J. Food Protect. 43:140-150.

Bryan, F* L., H. Anderson, R K. Anderson, K. J. Baker, H. Matsuura,
J. Wo McKinley, R. Swanson, and E. Todd. 1976, Procedures to
Investigate Food-borne Illness. International Association of Milk,
Food and Environmental Sanitarians, Ames, Iowa.

Buchanan, T. M., L. C. Faber, and R. A. Feldman. 1974. Brucellosis in
the United States, 1960-1972: An abattoir-associated disease. Part
I. Clinical features and therapy. Medicine 53:403-439.

Butzler, J. P., and M. B. Skirrow. 1979. Campylobacter enteritis.
Clin. Gastroenterol. 8:737-765.

Campbell, S. G., and C. A. Cookingham. 1978. The enigma of winter
dysentery. Cornell Vet. 68:423-441.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1975. Toxoplasmosis Pensylvania.
MMWR 24:285-286.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1977. Streptococcal Wound Infection
Outbreak in Abattoir Workers Vermont. EPI-77-40-2. Bacterial
Diseases Division, Bureau of Epidemiology, Center for Disease
Control, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Atlanta, Georgia.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1980. Trichinosis United States,
1970. Surveillance Summary. MMWR 29:481-484.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1982a. Common-source outbreaks of
trichinosis New York City, Rhode Island. MMWR 31:161-164.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control) . 1982b. Psittacosis associated with
turkey processing Ohio* MMWR 30s 638-640.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control)* 1984. Notifiable diseases Reported
cases by geographic division and area, United States, 1983. MMWR
33s542-547.

Christopher, F. M., G. C. Smith, and C. Vanderzant. 1982. Examination
of poultry giblets, raw milk and meat for Campylobacter fetus subsp.
jejuni. J. Food Protect. 45:260-262.

Clifton-Hadley, F. A. 1983. Streptococcus suis type 2 infections. Br.
Vet. J. 139:1-5.

Desmonts, G, J. Couvreur, F. Alison el; al. 1965. Etude gpidgmiologique
sur la toxoplasmose: de l f influence de la cuisson des viandes de
boucherie sur la frequence de l f infect ion humaine. Rev. Franc.
Etud. Clin. Biol. 10:952-958.

DeWit, J. C., G. Broekhuizen, and E. H. Kamplemacher . 1979. Cross
contamination during the preparation of frozen chickens in the
kitchen. J. Hyg. 83:27-32.

DHEW (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). 1965.

Hepatitis Surveillance. Report No. 24. Communicable Disease Center,
Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Atlanta, Georgia.

DHEW (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). 1977.
Salmonella Surveillance Report. Annual Summary 1976. U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C.

DHHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 1981a. Foodborne
Disease Surveillance. Annual Summary 1978, revised. HHS Publ. No.
(CDC) 81-8185. Centers for Disease Control, Public Health Service,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia.

DHHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 1981b. Foodborne
Disease Surveillance. Annual Summary 1979. HHS Publ. No. (CDC)
81-8185. Centers for Disease Control, Public Health Service, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia.

DHHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 1983a. Foodborne
Disease Surveillance. Annual Summary 1980. HHS Publ. No. (CDC)
83-8185. Centers for Disease Control, Public Health Service, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia.

DHHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 1983b. Foodborne
Disease Surveillance. Annual Summary 1981. HHS Publ. No. (CDC)
83-8185. Centers for Disease Control, Public Health Service, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia.

DHHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 1983c. Foodborne
Disease Surveillance. Annual Summary 1982. HHS Publ. No. (CDC)
83-8185. Centers for Disease Control, Public Health Service, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia.

Doyle, M. P. 1981. Campylobacter fetus subsp. jejuni: An old pathogen
of new concern. J. Food Protect. 44:480-488.

Durfee, P. T., M. M. Pullen, R. W. Currier, and R. L. Parker. 1975.

Human psittacosis associated with commercial processing of turkeys.
J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 167s 804-808.

Finch, M. J., and P. A. Blake. In press. The epidemiology of foodborne
outbreaks of Campylobacter in the United States, 1980-1982. Am. J.
Epidemiol.

Firehammer, B. D., and L. L. Meyers. 1981. Campylobacter fetus subsp.
jejuni: Its possible significance in enteric disease of calves and
lambs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 42:918-922.

Firstenberg-Eden, R. 1983. Rapid estimation of the number of micro-
organisms in raw meat by impedance measurement. Food Technol.
37:64-70.

Fox, M. D., and A. F. Kaufmann. 1977. Brucellosis in the United
States, 1965-1974. J. Infect. Dis. 136:312-316.

Garcia, M. M., M. D. Eaglesome, and C. Rigby. 1983. Campylobacters
important in veterinary medicine. Vet. Bull. 53:793-818.

Grant, I. H., N. J. Richardson, and V. D. Bokkenheuser. 1980. Broiler
chickens as potential source of Campylobacter infections in humans.
J. Clin. Microbiol. 11:508-510.

Hauschild, A. H. W., and F. L. Bryan. 1980. Estimate of cases of food-
and waterborne illness in Canada and the United States. J. Food
Protect. 43:435-440.

Hird, D. W., and M. M. Pullen. 1979. Tapeworms, meat and man: A brief
review and update of cysticercosis caused by Taenia saginata and
Taenia solium. J. Food Protect. 42:58-64.

Holmberg, S. D., and P. A. Blake. 1984. Staphylococcal food poisoning
in the United States: New facts and old misconceptions. J. Am.
Med. Assoc. 251:487-489.

Holmberg, S. D., J. G. Wells, and M. L. Cohen. 1984a. Animal-to-man
transmission of antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella : Investigations
of U.S. outbreaks, 1971-1983. Science 225:833-835.

Holmberg, S. D., M. T. Osterholm, K. A. Senger, and M. L. Cohen. 1984b.
Drug resistant Salmonella from animals fed antimicrobials. N. Engl.
J. Med. 311:617-622.

Horwitz, M. A., and E. J. Gangarosa. 1976. Foodborne disease outbreaks
traced to poultry, United States, 1966-1974. J. Milk Food Technol.
39:859-863.

ICMSF (International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for
Foods). 1974. Microorganisms in Foods. 2. Sampling for Micro-
biological Analysis: Principles and Specific Applications.
University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario.

Kaufmann, A. F., M. D. Fox, J. M. Boyce, D. C. Anderson, M. E. Potter,
W. J. Martone, and C. M. Patton. 1980. Airborne spread of brucel-
losis. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 353:105-114.

Kean, B. H., A. C. Kimball, and W. N. Christenson. 1969. An epidemic
of acute toxoplasmosis. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 208:1002-1004.

Kinde, H., C. A. Genigeorgis, and M. Pappaioanou. 1983. Prevalence of
Camplyobacter jejuni in chicken wings. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
45:1116-1118.

Lander, K. P., and K. P. W. Gill. 1979. Campylobacter mastitis.
Letters. Vet. Rec. 105:333.

Langlois, B. E., G. L. Cromwell, and V. W. Hays. 1978a. Influence of
chlortetracycline in swine feed on reproductive performance and on
incidence and persistance of antibiotic resistant enteric bacteria.
J. Anim. Sci. 46:1369-1382.

Langlois, B. E., G. L. Cromwell, and V. W. Hays. 1978b. Influence of
type of antibiotic and length of antibiotic feeding period on
performance and persistence of antibiotic resistant enteric bacteria
in growing-finishing swine. J. Anim. Sci. 46:1383-1396.

Leighty, J. C. 1974. The role of meat inspection in preventing
trichinosis in man. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 165:994-995.

Levy, S. B. 1984. Playing antibiotic pool: Time to tally the score.
N. Engl. J. Med. 311:663-665.

Levy, S. B., G. B. FitzGerald, and A. B. Macone. 1976. Spread of
antibiotic-resistant plasmids from chicken to chicken and from
chicken to man. Nature 260:40-42.

Linton, A. H., K. Howe, P. M. Bennett, M. H. Richmond, and E. J.

Whiteside. 1977. The colonization of the human gut by antibiotic
resistant Escherichia coll from chickens. J. Appl. Bacteriol.
43:465-469.

Logan, E, F., S. B. Neil, and D P. Mackie. 1982* Mastitis in dairy
cows associated with an aerotolerant campy lobacter. Vet. Rec.
110:229-230.

Luechtefeld, N. W,, and W.-L. L. Wang, 1981* Campylobacter fetus
subsp. jejuni in a turkey processing plant- J Clin. Microbiol.
13:266-268.

Martin, W. T., C. M. Patton, G. K. Morris, M. E. Potter, and N. D. Puhr.
1983* Selective enrichment broth medium for isolation of
Campylobacter jejuni J. Clin. Microbiol. 17:853-855.

Masur, H., T. C. Jones, J. A. Lempert, and T. B. Churoubine. 1978.

Outbreak of toxoplasmosis in a family and documentation of acquired
retinochoroiditis. Am. J. Med. 64:396-402.

Meister, K. A., and R. A. Greenberg. 1983. Antibiotics in Animal

Feeds: A Threat to Human Health. American Council on Science and
Health, New York.

Merson, M. H. , J. M. Hughes, and E. J. Gangarosa. 1980. Miscellaneous
food poisoning. Pp. 1-20 in J. A. Spittell, Jr., ed. Clinical
Medicine. Harper and Row, Hagerstown, Maryland.

Munroe, D. L., J. F. Prescott, and J. L. Penner. 1983. Campylobacter
jejuni and Campylobacter coli serotypes isolated from chickens,
cattle, and pigs. J. Clin. Microbiol. 18:877-881.

Neu, H. C., C. E. Cherubin, E. D. Longo, B. Flouton, and J. Winter.

1975. Antimicrobial resistance and R-factor transfer among isolates
f Salmonella in the northeastern United States: A comparison of
human and animal isolates. J. Infect. Dis. 132:617-622.

NRC (National Research Council). 1969. An Evaluation of the Salmonella
Problem. Report of the Committee on Salmonella, Division of Biology
and Agriculture. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, B.C.

NRC (National Research Council). 1980. Long-Range Environmental
Outlook. Proceedings of a Workshop. November 14-16, 1979.
Environmental Studies Board, Commission on Natural Resources.
National Academy Press, Washington, B.C.

NRC (National Research Council). 1984. An Evaluation of the Role of
Microbiological Criteria in Foods and Food Ingredients. Report of
the Subcommittee on Microbiological Criteria, Committee on Food
Protection, Food and Nutrition Board. National Academy Press,
Washington, B.C.

Olgaard, K. 1977. Betermination of relative bacterial levels on
carcasses and meats a new quick method. J. Appl. Bacteriol.
42:321-329.

Oosterom, J., G. J. A. De Wilde, E. De Boer, L. H. De Blaauw, and

H. Karman. 1983. Survival of Cam^jlobact&r jejuni during poultry
processing and pig slaughtering, J. Food Protect* 46:702-706.

Potter, M. E., M. B. Kruse, M. A. Matthews, R. 0. Hill, and R. J.
Martin. 1976. A sausage-associated outbreak of trichinosis in
Illinois. Am. J. Publ. Health 66:1194-1196.

Price, J. H. 1969. Toxoplasma infection in urban community. Br. Med.
J. 4:141-143.

Public Health Laboratory Service. 1983. Prevention of streptococcal
sepsis in meat handlers. CDR 83-34. Public Health Laboratory
Service, Collindale, England.

Riley, L. W., R. S. Remis , S. D. Helgerson, H. B. McGee, J. G. Wells,
B. R. Davis, R. J. Hebert, E. S. Olcott, L. M. Johnson, N. T.
Hargrett, P. A. Blake, and M. L. Cohen. 1983. Hemorrhagic colitis
associated with a rare Escherichia coli serotype. N. Engl. J. Med.
308:681-685.

Schachter, J., and C. R. Dawson. 1978. Psittacosis. Pp. 9-43 in Human
Chlamydial Infections. PSG Publishing, Littleton, Massachusetts.

Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. 1984. Surveillance
of the flow of Salmonella and Campy lobacter in a community.
Communicable Disease Control Section, Seattle-King County Department
of Public Health. Contract #223817041. Report to U.S. Food and
Drug Administration. Seattle-King County Department of Public
Health, Seattle, Washington.

Seawright, G. L., W. M. Sanders, and M. Bryson. 1981. Automation of
the enzyme immunoassay for the serodiagnosis of infectious diseases
in livestock. Pp. 145-168 in J. E. Butler, ed. The Ruminant Immune
System. Plenum Press, New York.

Simmons, N. A., and F. J. Gibbs. 1979. Campylobacter spp. in oven-
ready poultry. J. Infect. 1:159-162.

Skirrow, M. B. 1982. Campylobacter enteritis The first 5 years. J.
Hyg. 89:175-184.

Smith, M. V., and P. J. Muldoon. 1974. Campylobacter fetus subspecies
jejuni (VibrjjQ fetus) from commercially processed poultry. Appl.
Microbiol. 27:995-996.

Stabler, S. L., D. J. Fagerberg, and C. L. Quarles. 1982. Effects of
oral and injectable tetracyclines on bacterial drug resistance in
feedlot cattle. Am. J. Vet. Res. 43:1763-1766.

Stallones, R. A. 1982. Epidemiology and public policy: Pro- and
anti-biotic. Am. J. Epidemiol. 115:485-491.

Topping 5 N. H, 3 C. C. Shepard, and J. Z. Irons* 1947. Q-fever In
United States Epidemiologic studies of an outbreak among
stockhandlers and slaughterhouse workers. J. Am. Med. Assoc.
133:813-815.

van Schothorst, M. 3 and J. Oosterom. 1984. Enterobacteriaceae as
indicators of good manufacturing practices in rendering plants.
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 50:l-6

WHO/ICMSF (World Health Organization/ International Commission on

Microbiological Specifications for Foods). 1982. Report of the
WHO/ICMSF Meeting on Hazard Analysis: Critical Control Point Sysl
in Food Hygiene. World Health Organization Geneva.

Management of Chemical Hazards
in Meat and Poultry

Since the end of World War II , there have been revolutionary
developments in synthetic organic chemistry. As of spring 1985, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had a list of 60,000
marketed chemicals, and new compounds can be expected to be added at
the current rate of 1,200 each year (McCormick, 1985). Many of these
enter our environment through use and disposal (Druley and Ordway,
1977).

This chemical revolution has produced fundamental changes in major
sections of the U.S. economy, including agriculture and food
processing, and has brought significant benefits to the American
consumer in terms of low-cost, high-quality food but not without its
own costs. Although the nation's problems with chemical waste disposal
and handling are not new, they have become more severe each year.
Since the publication of Silent Spring (Carson, 1962), Americans have
been greatly concerned about the presence of chemicals in their
environment and food supply. To the extent that the raw material for
U.S. meat and poultry is exposed both intentionally and accidentally to
chemicals during processing and through contact with the air, water,
and soil, the food supply provides a complex pathway for many different
compounds .

In 1976, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS) noted that "the chemical entities comprising those constituents
of foods that are pertinent to food safety encompass a wide spectrum of
substances that are introduced into foods through a number of routes.
Such substances can be categorized into two groups: (1) those present
as naturally occurring components or contaminants; and (2) those added
by man in the course of food manufacture or preparation 11 (DHEW, 1976).
The second category is most important for the purposes of this report,
because it includes substances that are intentionally added or that
accidentally enter foods during production or processing. Among these
are residues from seed, soil, or crop treatment as well as residues
from the treatment of animals or from feed additives. The NIEHS report
went on to note that "the breadth of this field makes it difficult to
-inH-i vi Him"! ftiihflf-,anrp a or* p.vcm Cfrfouns of "related substances

CHEMICAL HAZARDS: SOME EXAMPLES

This section illustrates how chemicals can affect the nation 1 s
supply of meat and poultry, but it does not present a compre-
hensive review. The examples show the wide variety of chemicals
(agricultural, environmental, pharmaceutical, and processing-related)
that are potential public health hazards. They are arranged by major
source or pathway by which the chemical may enter meat or poultry, but
many chemicals (or groups) are not limited to one primary source or
pathway. Pesticides, for example, might have been classified as
agricultural or environmental. The committee chose this system of
arranging these examples in order to provide some overview of the
complex relationships between agricultural production, industrial
processing, and other sources of chemicals that find their way into
meat and poultry. These examples also show that the presence of
chemicals in meat and poultry may be intentional (as in feed additives,
growth promotants, or preservatives) or accidental (such as halogenated
biphenyls, pesticides, or metals and metalloids) (DHHS, 1984; NRG,
1973; Preussmann, 1978).

Production-Related Chemicals

Agricultural Chemicals. Livestock can be exposed to many chemicals,
which are used to promote or permit growth, improve feed utilization,
promote rumen efficiency, control reproductive cycles, control pests,
enhance feed acceptability, extend feed quantity, extend feed shelf
life, prevent or treat disease, or enhance end-product acceptability.
Many of these chemicals have received considerable public attention
because of reported residues in meat and poultry. The public health
implications of all such compounds warrant continuing evaluation and
monitoring (Booth, 1982; Doull ejt aU , 1980; Doyle and Spaulding, 1978;
ILSI, 1984; NRC, 1974, 1981; OTA, 1979).

Two decades ago, the agricultural chemical of greatest concern to
the public was diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic estrogen used to
promote weight gain in cattle. This became the focus of attention when
residues of DES were occasionally detected in beef livers. DES is now
known to be both carcinogenic and associated with reproductive
disorders in humans when administered in high doses (CAST, 1977), and
its use to promote weight gains in livestock has been banned in the
United States.

Livestock feed can be a source of pesticide residue in meat and
poultry. Some chlorinated hydrocarbons (CHCs), which are no longer
permitted for unrestricted use on crops in the United States, may be
environmentally persistent and a source of concern for public health.
The National Residue Program (NRP) currently maintains surveillance of
both domestic and imported meat and poultry for CHCs such as aldrin,
benzene hexachloride, chlordane, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT),
dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, methoxychlor , and toxaphene. For a vast
array of organophosphates, carbamates, and other synthetic pesticides

widely used in crop production (which are, in turn, used during meat
and poultry production), residue tolerance levels in food have been
established under Section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (Ackerman, 1980; Barstad, 1978; Davison and Sell, 1972; Frank ejt
aU , 1978; Joint FAO/WHO Committee, 1976; USDA, 1984, 1985).

Environmental Chemicals* Health effects from the accidental
contamination of the environment by chemicals are of increasing
interest (Booth, 1982; Burrows, 1981; Cousins t al. , 1973; Doyle,
1979; Jelliffe and Jelliffe, 1982; Oehme, 1979; Roberts, 1981; Russell,
1978; U.S. Congress, 1979). Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), for
example, were used in the manufacture of a variety of products before
their long-term environmental impact was recognized. PCBs now appear
to be part of the global ecosystem. By 1979 , they were no longer
manufactured or used in the United States (Drotman ejt a^. , 1983; Jones
ejt al_., 1975; Khan and Stanton, 1981; Kimbrough, 1980; Qsheim et al.,
1982; Safe, 1982). Because they are persistent and highly lipophilic,
however, PCB residues are still routinely detected in the fatty tissues
of humans, livestock, wildlife, and fish as well as in human milk.

The committee examined some case histories of environmental
chemicals in meat and poultry, including PCB contamination through
fatty animal by-products added to feed in the western United States in
the summmer of 1979 (USDA, 1980), the contamination of turkey products
with chemical residues in the state of Washington during 1979 (USDA,
1980), and polybrominated biphenyl contaminations in Michigan (Sleight,
1979). In each of these cases, contamination occurred on the farm and
therefore out of the jurisdiction of FSIS. Thus, it was impossible for
the inspection system to control through traditional procedures. The
experience with PCB has taught us that before the use of industrial
compounds is permitted, the compounds should be rigorously evaluated
for public health and environmental effects, even if major human
exposure is not expected or intended (Fazio and Howard, 1983; Hansen,
1979).

Mycotoxins, a class of toxic products of molds, are natural
contaminants of food or feed. The most studied, and possibly most
significant, of the food- and feed-borne mycotoxins is aflatoxin B^.
It is unlikely that significant amounts of aflatoxin B^ are
transferred into the human food chain from residues in animal tissues,
because mature, nonlactating animals are effective mycotoxin modifiers
and eliminators and because the aflatoxin content of feed grains is
monitored in the United States.

In addition to aflatoxin, mycotoxins of public health concern
include ochratoxin A, zearalenone, patulin, penicillic acid, and
trichothecenes. Swine and poultry are susceptible to the nephrotoxic
action of ochratoxin A, and residues have been found in swine tissue in
Denmark, Sweden, and Yugoslavia. Affected animals exhibit gross renal
changes easily detectable at postmortem inspection. Danish health
authorities have established a system for ochratoxin analysis of all

suspect pig kidneys at slaughter. They require condemnation of the
entire carcass if ochratoxin is detected* The frequency and levels of
mycotoxins in some imported meat and poultry products may be higher
than those of products produced in the United States . Monitoring for
potentially toxic derivatives of mycotoxins is not routinely conducted
in the United States (Rodricks eit al . , 1977; NRC, 1979)*

Lead is a cause of accidental poisoning of food-animal s. Sources of
lead include feed, fuels , discarded lead-acid batter ies, and lead-based
paints. Most known cases occur on small farms and ranches. Lead is
accumulated and stored mainly in the bone, liver, kidney, and, to a
lesser degree, muscle. If bone chips containing lead are accidentally
incorporated into processed meats, they could be a source of
contamination (Edwards and Wiedemann, 1980; Fick ej^ al , 1976; Detune,
1978).

Pharmaceuticals. Veterinary Pharmaceuticals may be administered on
a one-time basis, for several days, or for longer periods. During the
production of meat and poultry, the shorter periods of administration
are generally for therapeutic purposes (as medication), whereas longer
use, often at subtherapeutic dosages, is intended to improve production
or prevent disease. The producer or veterinarian is responsible for
determining the proper dosage and for discontinuing the drugs an
appropriate interval before the animal is slaughtered* This withdrawal
period has been established by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
for each pharmaceutical to ensure that residues or derivatives in food
do not exceed specified levels.

It is difficult to obtain accurate data on the use of antibiotics
for subtherapeutic feeding of livestock, but there seems to be
considerable variation across the industry. Various sources have
reported that between 9 million (Schell, 1984) and 15 million
(Toufexis, 1984) pounds of antibiotics are added to the feed of farm
animals in the United States each year in order to enhance
productivity. To various degrees the practice affects dairy calves,
dairy cows, nursery pigs, growing hogs, calves, stocker cattle, feedlot
cattle, and poultry. The industry generally believes that
subtherapeutic levels of antibiotics in the feed are essential to
prevent economic losses under current husbandry practices. It is often
difficult to determine the precise antibiotic history for a particular
animal because of inaccuracy in the reporting of concentrations added
to feed when the mixing procedure is performed by the feeder. The
serious public health concern posed by the possible development and
transfer of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria to humans is
discussed in Chapter 3.

Processing-Related Chemical Contamination

Concern for public health is an important consideration in the
design of new meat and poultry processing procedures and is often a
motivating factor for the adoption of sound manufacturing practices by

reputable processors . Aesthetics is a second priority. The impression
of some consumers that the food industry pays insufficient attention to
safety may stem from the absence of sanctioned criteria against which
safety can be objectively measured. Moreover, there has been concern
that the public health Implications of chemicals added during
processing may be overlooked in the fierce marketplace competition
generated by the avalanche of new products (Ayres and Kirschman, 1981;
Graham, 1980; Greig, 1984; Harris and Karmas, 1975; Jul, 1984; Pearson
and Tauber, 1984).

Additives. All food additives used in meat and poultry processing
are covered by the tolerance-setting process provided by Section 409 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Joint FAO/ IAEA/WHO Expert
Committee on Food Additives, 1984; Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on
Food Additives, 1980, 1983; Kroger and Smith, 1984). Committees of the
National Research Council's Food and Nutrition Board have surveyed the
food industry to identify the chemicals and amounts intentionally added
to various food products and to assess the benefits derived from them.
There are approximately 1,800 food additives, most of which are flavors
and antioxidants (Rehwoldt, 1984). Probably less than 1% of these are
used in meat and poultry products specifically. Factors that affect
the use of chemical additives are safety, cost, reliability of supply,
impact on net sales of the product, available quality of specific
additives, technological changes, and public perception of safety
(Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, 1983; Rehwoldt,
1984).

Chlorine. Water used in processing is chlorinated to reduce
microbiological contamination of meat and poultry, although the
efficacy of this practice under certain conditions is not certain.
Chlorine has been recovered from animal lipids, depending on the
concentration of chlorine to which the carcass had been exposed. The
public health implications of this need further evaluation (Cantor,
1982; Cunningham and Lawrence, 1979; Mead et. al. , 1975; Meyers, 1984;
Zoeteman e_t JLU, 1982).

Heating. Foods are browned upon heating when reducing sugars
interact with amino acids to form polymers that are brown and have
various organoleptic properties. Pigments produced by the browning
reaction are toxic at relatively high concentrations, but the
concentrations formed during normal cooking are generally not
considered hazardous. These and other products of cooking, storing,
and smoking meats and poultry have been the subject of numerous
toxicity studies, especially for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity .
When compounds formed by heating are isolated, concentrated, and
tested, they are often found to be toxic. For example, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are commonly found in fresh, smoked,
grilled, and, especially, cured meats. Of the more than 100 PAH
compounds identified, 5 are known to be carcinogenic when administered
orally, and 3 of the 5 are part of the average U.S. diet. The impact
of these compounds on humans at ordinary dietary levels throughout a
lifetime is unknown (Meyer, 1960).

Fragment s. Metal fragments sometimes enter meat and poultry during
processing. The modern techniques of metal detection and retrieval
(some of which are discussed in Chapter 9) are considered adequate for
the reasonable protection of the safety of these ^ products. Bone
fragments of extremely small particle size sometimes enter processed
meats as the result of manual or mechanical deboning procedures* When
good manufacturing practices are followed, the public health risk due
to bone fragments are minor.

Packages . Packages for meat and poultry are manufactured from many
different components that have various chemical compositions and can
affect the food they protect. Such interactions have been the subject
of extensive study. For example, polyvinyl chloride and acrylonitrile
can leach out of packaging materials and thereby become indirect
additives to food.

Evaluation of the potential risks posed by packaging material is
complex and difficult. It must include the identification,
measurement, and toxicological evaluation of compounds extracted from
the materials under various storage conditions. At present, no
information directly links the small amounts of such compounds in foods
to adverse effects on human health. Nonetheless, FDA approval is
required for all materials used to package meat and poultry in the
United States (Karel and Heidelbaugh, 1975; Saeharow, 1979).

Irradiation. Meat and poultry products are currently not irradiated
in the United States, although certain doses and energy levels have
been approved for other foods (FDA, 1981; Joint FAG/ IAEA/WHO Expert
Committee, 1981; Ley, 1983). The approved levels would generally leave
no residual radioactivity in the food, but the process of irradiation
causes concern because of its ability to create new chemical species
through free radical formation. Through new technology, however, free
radical reactions are controlled either by irradiating foods in the
frozen state to immobilize the radicals or by lowering the dose and
energy level of irradiation to minimize free radical formation.

Storage. During processing and storage, chemical and physical
changes can occur in the tissues that comprise meat and poultry. Such
intrinsic changes, which can occur without the presence of chemical
contamination, may involve oxidation, dehydration, free radical
formation, or polymerization phenomena that can generate other chemical
compounds. The diversity of such changes can contribute to variety in
taste and texture of the processed meat and poultry. The nature of
these changes may be altered either intentionally for aesthetic reasons
or merely as a result of new technology and distribution practices.

Regulatory agencies have been concerned primarily with intentionally
or accidentally "added 11 chemicals. Thus, these intrinsic chemical
changes have usually been regarded as "natural 11 and generally assumed
to be safe. Nevertheless, few objective data are available regarding
the long-term public health implications of such changes (Ames, 1983;
Lee, 1983; Roberts, 1981).

49
THE UNCERTAIN REGULATORY CONTEXT

In the early 1970s , a conflict over programs to control chemical
hazards resulted in a division of responsibilities between the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the then new EPA. Pesticide
regulation, which had once been the responsibility of USDA, was turned
over to EPA. Over time, the fluctuating relationship between these two
agencies resulted in an uncertain tie between EPA, which determines
pesticide tolerance, and USDA, which monitors tolerances. Other
objectives are divided between USDA's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) and FDA, and still others between FSIS and state
agencies. Thus, the National Residue Program of USDA must monitor
compliance while FDA sets the rules. FSIS is often criticized for
failure to take action in areas not within its purview. Thus, although
the protection of public health is a primary concern of all these
agencies, the division of responsibilities to attain that goal is quite
complex.

As administrations have changed, different emphases have been given
to NRP, varying from strong support for its operation and output to a
greater degree of skepticism about the seriousness of its mission and
the importance of -residue programs. This has made it difficult to
maintain consistency in program administration and to develop a
long-term plan.

The high level of conflict and uncertainty is exemplified by the
current controversy surrounding antibiotics in animal feeds. Because
of congressional action, the FDA (the standard-setter for animal drugs)
has not been able to finalize its proposals for regulation of these
compounds. From a public policy perspective, such disagreements make
an adequate scientific evaluation of the chemical residue problem and
its relevance to meat and poultry even more difficult than its
technical complexity would imply.

THE NATIONAL RESIDUE PROGRAM

The National Residue Program, begun in 1967, is the federal
government's principal regulatory mechanism for determining the
presence and level of those chemicals in meat and poultry that have
been judged (primarily by FDA, EPA, and FSIS) to be of public health
concern. Through this program FSIS applies new technologies and
testing procedures in the monitoring of approximately 100 of the
chemicals that may be found in meat and poultry. These chemicals are
selected on the basis of toxicity, exposure level, persistence, and
other relevant criteria (USDA, 1983a,b, 1984, 1985).

50
NRP Objectives

The NRP has four major objectives: monitoring, surveillance,
exploratory testing, and prevention of chemical residues in meat and
poultry.

Monitor ing . Monitoring is achieved by taking random samples of
tissue from apparently healthy domestic meat and poultry animals as
they pass through routine inspection at slaughter (postmortem
inspection) and random samples of imported meat products.
Approximately 22,500 domestic samples and 10,800 samples of imported
products were scheduled for testing in 1985. (The sample plan proposed
by FSIS for calendar year 1985 is summarized in Tables 4-1 and 4-2.)
These samples are used to test for compliance with tolerance levels for
the chemicals as well as to identify patterns and trends in the
distribution, frequency, and levels of chemical residues. They also
identify tolerance- or action-level violations. In addition, samples
suspected of containing unacceptably high residue levels are examined
so that remedial action can be taken. Meat and poultry tested under
the monitoring system are normally sold and consumed before test
results are available. However, information gathered in the monitoring
program is referred to FDA or EPA for review and for use in on-the-farm
inspections to determine whether chemicals are misused. Monitoring
test results can trigger surveillance testing.

Some monitoring is for "generic" components (e.g., testing for any
member of the family of arsenicals by testing for the presence of
arsenic). Other chemicals are periodically added to or deleted from
the test list in order to increase the variety and scope of the
program. In general, the number of samples tested is designed to
ensure, at the 95% confidence level, that the chemical will be detected
in at least one sample if it occurs in 1% or more of the population of
animals being observed during a given year. The current residue
testing strategy of FSIS is to detect with 95% confidence whether or
not a problem exists in 1% of the animal population. This is
inadequate to prevent consumer exposure to the residues. Because
millions of animals are slaughtered annually (e.g., between 36 million
and 40 million cattle alone), the chance of any animal being sampled in
the United States is minuscule. Furthermore, because of the increasing
number and variety of contaminating residues that may constitute
possible health hazards, especially to susceptible subgroups in the
population, and because the overall contamination rate of less than 1%
may be considerably higher for certain foods sources or consumer
groups, the committee questions whether this sampling plan is adequate.

Surveillance. Surveillance is based on targeted sampling of meat
and poultry products to control or investigate suspected violations.
Approximately 8,850 domestic samples and 120 samples of imported
products were planned for surveillance in 1985. Surveillance testing
may be initiated when a producer is suspected of marketing animals with
residues above limits set by EPA or FDA. Carcasses are retained while

TABLE 4-1 Species Groups and Production Classes for Chemical Samp
in the National Residue Program, 1985 a

Domestic Species (Production Minimum Sample Un

Apportionment) Analyzed Per Year

Horses 100

Bulls/cows (10%/90%) 300

Heifers/steers (34%/66%) 300

Calves 300

Sheep/lamb (20%/80%) 100

Goats 100

Hogs, market 300

Cows/boars (75%/25%) 300

Chickens, young 300

Chickens mature 300

Turkeys, young b 300

Turkeys, mature 300

Ducks 300

Geese 60

Rabbits 100

a From USDA, 1985.

Normally 16 weeks old,
G Breeding stock.

TABLE 4-2 Samples Designated for Chemical Analysis in the National
Residue Program Plan for 1985 a

Residue Designation

Domestic^

Imported"

Total

Albendazole

720

375

1,095

Antibiotics

10,075

1,892

11,967

Arsenic

900

Chloramphenicol

1,800

2,893

4,693

Chlorinated hydrocarbons

4,225

3,100

7,325

Cyromazine (Larvadex)

600

313

913

Diethylstilbestrol

300

Estrogenic compounds

300

Fenbendazole

450

Ipronidazole

900

Iveraectin

700

313

1,013

Lasalocid

600

Levamisole

1,300

276

1,576

Organophosphates

600

375

975

Pentachlorophenol

1,200

Sulfonamides

8,150

1,432

9,582

Trace elements

1,200

273

1,473

TOTALS

34,020

11,242

45,262

a From USDA, 1985.

b Figures reflect multiple tests of a single tissue sample.

the tests are conducted* If violations are found, the carcass is
condemned and the producer may not market other animals until
additional tissue samples show no Illegal residues*

Imported meat and poultry products are tested for residues at the
port of entry* Meat and poultry Imported Into the United States must
undergo country-of-origin residue monitoring efforts similar to those

in this country*

FSIS is developing new residue-testing methods to speed analyses
Inspectors use a Swab Test on Premises (STOP) to detect antibiotic
residues In animal tissues within 24 hours , while the carcass is still
in the plant, as compared with 1 to 2 weeks for routine laboratory
testing done at an off-plant laboratory* If the test is positive for
antibiotics, the carcass is held at the plant while samples are sent to
an FSIS laboratory to identify the drug and the amount present. If
residues above action levels are confirmed, the carcass is condemned*
Recently a Calf Antibiotic Sulfonamide Test (CAST) was developed for
use in plants where young calves are slaughtered,

Exploratory Testing* In exploratory testing, random or nonrandom
samples are taken to study chemicals in meat and poultry for which safe
limits have not been established (e*g., mycotoxins, trace chemicals, or
industrial chemicals). Plans for 1985 include exploratory analyses of
approximately 2,700 domestic samples and 273 samples of imported
products* The information gained from these tests is used to define
the frequency, distribution, and levels of occurrence of chemicals.
The exploratory program also involves studies to help develop new
methods for evaluating existing programs.

Prevention* In 1981, FSIS in collaboration with the USDA's
Extension Service initiated a chemical residue prevention program*
This effort is designed to help domestic livestock and poultry
producers prevent chemical contamination of their animals* This
program is primarily educational, providing counseling by extension
service personnel and specialists who have been awarded contracts on a
competitive basis (USDA, 1983a).

Evaluation of the NRP

The committee's work was hampered by the absence of meaningful
technical data on NRP operation and information on its management. The
current program seems to generate considerable data but they are not
organized into a form that can be analyzed. This lack of information
substantially inhibits program evaluation and tends to cast doubt on
the NRP's utility, even if the program operations are in fact adequate*

The committee examined data from the NRP's Monitoring Phase
Biological Residue Reports for each year from 1979 through 1983. These
data appear to refer to numbers of positive tests, rather than to
numbers of samples with one or more positive test results. Thus the

proportion of products affected may be higher than the figures cited*
These data indicate that the sampling and analysis called for by the
monitoring phase of the NRP have been performede The range in the
ratio of samples classified as "violative 11 per total number of samples
tested varied with each species and market type. For example, this
range in 1983 was of 1,123 (violative samples among number tested)
for ducks to 97 of 4,920 for calves. Such data indicate the incidence
of violations for those chemicals for which tests were conducted. They
do not, however, indicate consumer exposure or health risks (if any).
The NRP is not designed to produce the data necessary for health risk
assessment

The data may, however, be used for other purposes, and internal
analysis may suggest ways that program processes (if not outcome) can
be improved. For example, there were no violative residues of
organophosphates found in 1,418 samples taken from 1979 through 1983,
yet the NRP plans to test 975 more samples for such residues in 1985,
including 375 taken from imported products. Similarly, no violative
residues of hormones were found in 3,024 samples, but the NRP plan
calls for 600 samples for DES and estrogenic compounds in 1985. This
raises the question of whether these testing resources might be put to
better use. FSIS is, of course, under external constraints in this
matter.

Conversely, where past results show a major problem, there is no
clear evidence of increased efforts to characterize it in preparation
for effective action. Violation rates from 1979 to 1983 were very high
indeed for antibiotics (515 of 34,848, for a rate of 1.48%),
sulfas (1,020 of 28,374, a rate of 3.59%), and halocarbons (103 of
29,495, which is 0.35%). All three seem to be particularly common in
cows, calves, and swine; sulfas are also common in turkeys. The 1985
sampling plan calls for tests on 270 cows, 300 calves, 600 turkeys, and
600 swine barely enough to tell (at the 95% confidence level) whether
the problems still exist and not clearly adequate to study such
important features as geographic or seasonal variation in violation
rates, the general nature and sources of affected animals (e.g., the
age and condition of cows), or correlations among violative residues
(e.g., whether the high-antibiotic swine are also the high-sulfa
swine). The committee recognizes that tissue samples from 3,460 meat
and poultry animals, which will be subjected to 34,020 tests in 1985,
is a large program. It maintains, however, that in terms of preventing
potential health effects, the resources allocated to the program may be
substantially less than those devoted to the traditional inspection
program. The committee found no program analysis by FSIS indicating
what allocation of resources to NRP would optimally protect public
health.

AN OPTIMAL PROGRAM TO ASSESS AND MANAGE CHEMICAL HAZARDS IN MEAT AND
POULTRY

Although the NRP has many features desirable in a program for
tracking chemical residues in meat and poultry, the committee believes

that it may be helpful to identify the optimal characteristics that
should be incorporated if the NRP were being designed today* Although
some aspects of these optimal features are found in the NRP, others are
not.

The primary focus of the program should be prevention. Detection
of problems can have little deterrent effect alone, especially in the
absence of trace-back and with the very low sampling fractions. An
emphasis on prevention implies major efforts to detect as well as to
characterize hazards with respect to environmental or other sources,
including suppliers, types and locations of affected food-animals, levels
of contamination, correlations among contaminants, and other features.
The link between testing for hazards and preventing them should be
strengthened. Each finding of a violation should be reviewed to deter-
mine preventive measures.

There should be a clear, precisely stated quantitative limit
(tolerance) for each chemical to be regulated under the program, and the
tolerances as a whole should be consistent and adequately measurable in
FSIS laboratories. The selection of chemicals for control and the
tolerance level (or perhaps levels) for each should be based on a single,
consistent set of principles for protecting the public health (Farber,
1983). The establishment of tolerances should include evaluation of
their adequacy as a public health protective measure, the adequacy of the
data base supporting tolerances, and the adequacy of dealing with
multiple residues, metabolites of residues, and multiple exposures from
sources other than meat and poultry*

Priorities should be determined in an open process by using
specific, stated guidelines determined largely by considerations of
public health. Priorities should be reviewed continually and changed in
accordance with new evidence.

Sampling methods are critical to prevention. Samples must be true
probability samples. Moreover, they must be adequate not only to detect
but also to characterize the nature and distribution of contaminants.

The sampling scheme should be designed to change rapidly in response to
new evidence (including that from the program itself) that the hazards
have changed. Random sampling schemes other than simple random sampling
should be considered with substantial technical advice from experts in
sample surveys. Sample sizes must be based on sound statistical design
to serve the needs of prevention.

Formal risk assessment should play an explicit, prominent role in
each of the features mentioned above: setting of tolerances, focus on
prevention and hazard characterization, priorities, and sample design
(see Chapter 10).

Technical aspects of the testing program should be adequate to
support the functions discussed above. The analytical methods used must
be appropriate to the task. Quality control, including blind "known 11
samples and blind retesting by the same and different laboratories,

should be a prominent feature The testing program will require
substantial support for research, including the development of more
accurate, more sensitive, and less expensive tests as well as tests for
new hazards* The program staff and its advisors should have a strong
voice in determining and meeting these research needs.

The inspection service , including those who select the samples and
those who collect them, must be trained and educated for their roles ,
Industry, too, must train and educate their personnel to promote
appropriate use of the testing program to protect the public o

Although prevention should be emphasized, the testing program as a
whole should have close links to regulatory enforcement; each should have
a substantial impact on the other* However aware of contamination and
its prevention industry and its management may become, there will remain
a likelihood that health hazards will still be inadvertently created by
chemical contamination*

Information systems should be an integral part of the program*
The system should provide prompt feedback to the inspection service;
rapid, accurate , and detailed reports to managers; and automatic flagging
of potential problems. Substantial expertise on information systems in
other federal regulatory programs may be helpful and should be tapped as
appropriate. An "information system" in this context should be construed
quite broadly to include data procedures and forms, transmission systems,
computers and programs , built-in management checks on such items as
adequacy of sampling and quality controls, and, of course , managers and
data analysts adequate to make optimum use of the information.
Throughout, needs for data recall and manipulation should be given high
priority*

The program should be developed and operated in a fully open
manner, with peer review, continuing and systematic use of advisory
committees, public hearings encouraging public participation, and
substantial efforts to improve public understanding*

The program must be flexible enough to recognize and respond to
changes in this rapidly changing field with minimum restrictions.

To be optimal within overall departmental resource constraints, a
program with these characteristics will require substantial resources:
money, staff, and physical tools and facilities.

As a result of the committee's preliminary comparison of this optimal
program and the current NRP, it believes that the NRP's primary objective
the protection of the public health is correct but that the program
falls short in implementing that objective in a number of important ways
(see Table 4-3).

The current program is not sufficiently directed toward the
prevention of serious public health problems in addition to its focus on

TABLE 4-3 A Chemical Residue Program: Comparison of Optimal
Characteristics and Current NRP

Optimal Characteristics a Current NRP

Comment

Public protection as the
major objective

Focus on prevention

Clear tolerance levels
available on all impor-
tant substances

A sampling scheme ade-
quate for prevention

Formal risk assessment

Adequate analytical tools
and testing capacity

A trained inspection
service

Close links to regula-
tory enforcement

Useful information system

Priorities set through
an open process

Public protection
is the major ob-
jective*

Focus is primarily
on detection;
some change since
1981.

All important sub-
stances do not have
tolerance levels.

Sampling scheme is
not adequate for
prevention.

Risk assessment is
not currently done.

Testing capacity has
improved but is
still inadequate.

Current training is
insufficient in
some areas.

Structure of FSIS
tends to discourage
communication.

Systems are adequate
for current needs
but not for antici-
pated problems.

Priorities are set
by a closed pro-
cess.

Meets the objec-
tive.

Some progress made;
still needs improve-
ment .

Progress made;
still needs improve-
ment.

Deficient.

Some improvements
made.

Needs improvement <

The field operations
and NRP need closer
ties.

Still needs improve-
ment.

Deficient.

a For details of optimal characteristics t see pages 54-58.

detection. Furthermore, the number and pattern of monitoring tests from
year to year bear only a minimal relationship to the changing nature of
potential public health problems* Formal risk assessment does not appear
to be conducted^ and although FSIS clearly states its own purpose with
respect to the seriousness of the substances for which it is sampling,
there does not appear to be a public process for either setting or
reviewing the priorities of the agency* FSIS deserves credit for
improving analytical testing procedures , yet the laboratory capacity for
operating in case of emergencies is limited. The committee's overall
impression is that the sampling system is primarily determined by
laboratory capacity rather than by judgments about the size and nature of
an optimal program to protect the public health.

Because of the organization of FSIS and the placement of the NRP
within its science component, it is difficult to know whether there is
adequate communication at the operations level between the program staff
and those in the enforcement part of the organization. Communications
may have been improved by the establishment of an agency-wide emergency
response system following the 1979 PCB contamination in the western
United States (USDA, 1980). However, the fundamental data base needed to
design an enforcement program that rationally builds on the data
collected through the NRP appears to be lacking. Because of this lack of
planning ability, the agency can only cope with emergencies as they arise.

The agency has nonetheless made some progress. For example, it has
developed better analytical methods for many chemicals, and as indicated
earlier, greater resources have been allocated to the effort over the
past 10 years. Yet, the committee finds that the current program is
seriously deficient in 3 of the 10 major characteristics of an optimal
system. Although the NRP does meet the primary objective of such a
program, and although progress has been made in the other 6 categories,
improvements are still needed. The committee recognizes that critical
decisions about NRP are beyond the control of FSIS, and even of USDA, but
believes strongly that steps must be taken to rectify these deficiencies
to protect the public health.

THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC

Improvements in the promotion and maintenance of good health could
result from actions that are virtually matters of individual discretion
(e.g., altering dietary habits, drug and alcohol use, exercise, and
smoking, and using seat belts in cars). Similarly, most infectious and
parasitic hazards associated with meat and poultry can be managed by
measures that can be controlled largely by consumers (e.g., in cooking,
handling, and sanitation). In contrast, toxic chemical hazards in meat
and poultry are not usually amenable to management by consumer actions.
Health problems associated with chemical hazards in foods must therefore
be managed by the public rather than by the individual consumer.

The need for a public approach to the management of chemical hazards
in foods is further reinforced by the difficulty in finding the source of

the contamination. This problem can stem from the potentially long
interval between exposure and the effects associated with some chemicals ,
compared with the relatively short period between exposure and disease
associated with most infectious microbiological hazards. In the past,
society has sometimes waited too long to take action to control hazardous
chemicals. In contrast, little harm (other than short-term economic
costs) would be encountered by reacting too soon to a suspected hazard.

TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES AFFECTING INSPECTION

Scientists 1 understanding of toxicology is rapidly changing and
expanding, and each major advance raises questions about additional
groups of chemicals that may not yet be recognized as hazards in meat and
poultry. The elements that are used in regulatory controls (e.g.,
permissible exposure levels and tolerances, avoidance, monitoring,
surveillance, enforcement protocols, and recordkeeping) are evolving and
must continue to change with advances in toxicology (Kroger and Smith,
1984). Laboratory analytical methods are also constantly improving. For
example, state-of-the-science laboratories equipped with chromatographic
mass-spectrometric analytical instruments can routinely detect
parts-per-trillion quantities of some chemicals. In time, it may be
possible to detect parts-per-trillion (or lower) quantities of chemicals
in foods derived from contaminated food-animals (Roberts, 1981;
Vettorazzi, 1980). The need to develop strategies and techniques
appropriate to new approaches in meat and poultry inspection has recently
been recognized (Dubbert, 1984; Heidelbaugh, 1982; Houston, 1984a,b;
USDA, 1983b).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Hundreds of thousands of chemicals can be identified in the environ-
ment. Thus, it is impractical to measure the presence or public health
risk of every one that may be a part of, gain entrance into, or be
generated within meat or poultry. Instead, to ensure the public health
safety of meat and poultry requires that procedures used must continually
identify chemical hazards, measure consumer exposures, evaluate the
health responses to those exposures, and provide risk characterizations.
The results of these assessments must be the subject of constant open and
objective discussions and critiques. The overall goal should be a
regulatory system that manages public health risks associated with
chemicals in meat and poultry by integrating the results of
scientifically developed risk assessments with considerations of
political, social, and economic realities (Food Safety Council, 1979;
NRC, 1983).

Given the data underlying tolerances and the current objectives of
FSIS, the committee maintains that the NRP is not demons trably adequate
to ensure maximum protection of the public health. A more rational
public health objective, based on the concepts of risk assessment and

risk management, would be to design the optimal system to ensure that no
one person consistently receives a total exposure to levels of chemicals
in excess of an established tolerance level Such a system would
incorporate all the characteristics of an optimal program identified
earlier in this chapter*

The committee recognizes that the NRP is constrained in many ways by
its legislative mandates It must attempt to test for hundreds of
chemicals, many of which do not have formal tolerances established by
either the FDA or the EPA agencies FSIS depends upon to describe
acceptable limits * The committee recommends , therefore, that mechanisms
be created to bring the standard-setting and the enforcement arms of the
government closer together* Furthermore, to the extent possible within
the limits of the legislative mandates, the committee recommends that
NRP, FSIS, and USDA work toward the goals described below*

Since chemical hazard testing is likely to increase relative to more
traditional kinds of testing, FSIS should continue to revise its program
to accommodate the changing needs . Efforts should include the
recruitment and development of management personnel, the development of a
capability for quantitative health risk assessment, especially for the
most urgent needs, and the development of sampling plans and testing
capabilities.

Substantial research needs include the development of economic tests
for many categories of chemicals that can be read while meat and poultry
are still in the slaughterhouse* The sensitivity of the tests must be
appropriate for relevant tolerance levels. New tests will be needed for
the chemicals continually added to the list of potentially significant
hazards .

NRP should promptly begin to develop an action-oriented information
system for program management to identify and track each violative
residue for appropriate action; to characterize hazards to assist in
prevention and to guide the development of sampling plans; and to monitor
and improve quality control in the testing program.

The committee further recommends that NRP consider strategies to
prevent consumer exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals. To achieve
this objective, the NRP should:

Control the entry of chemicals at the farm* Introduction of an
animal identification and trace-back system, as recommended in Chapter 5,
will be very useful.

* Revise the residue sampling plan (e.g., increase the sample size
and confidence level) to minimize consumer exposure. To ensure that
optimal procedures are devised, appropriate recent advances in science
and technology must be drawn upon.

Introduce formal risk assessment as a tool to provide maximum
protection*

Encourage open communication between FSIS scientists and outside
experts

REFERENCES

Ackerman, L. B. 1980. Humans: Overview of human exposure to dieldrin
residues in the environment and current trends of residue levels in
tissue, Pestic. Monit. J. 14:64-65.

Ames, B. N. 1983. Dietary carcinogens and anticarcinogens: Oxygen
radicals and degenerative diseases. Science 221:1256-1264.

Ayres, J. C., and J. C. Kirschman. 1981. Impact of Toxicology on Food
Processing. AVI Publishing, Westport, Connecticut.

Barstad, J. A. B. 1978. Pesticides and heavy metals as food

contaminants. Toxicological aspects of food safety. Arch. Toxicol.
1 (Suppl.):47-54.

Booth, N. H. 1982. Drug and chemical residues in the edible tissues
of animals. Pp. 1065-1113 in N. H. Booth and L. E. McDonald, eds.
Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Fifth edition. Iowa State
University Press, Ames, Iowa.

Burrows, G. E. 1981. Lead toxicosis in domestic animals: A review of
the role of lead mining and primary lead smelters in the United
States. Vet. Hum. Toxicol, 23:337-343.

Cantor, K. P. 1982. Epidemiological evidence of carcinogenicity of
chlorinated organics in drinking water. Environ. Health Perspect.
26:187-195.

Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston,
Massachusetts.

CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology). 1977. Hormonally
Active Substances in Foods: A Safety Evaluation. Report No. 66,
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.

Cousins, R. J., A. K. Barber, and J. R. Trout. 1973. Cadmium toxicity
in growing swine. J. Nutr. 103:964-972.

Cunningham, H. M. , and G. L. Lawrence. 1979. Volumetric method for
determining traces of organic chlorine in lipids. J. Assoc. Off.
Anal. Chem. 62:482-484.

Davison, K. L., and J. L. Sell. 1972* Dieldrin and p,p f -DDT effects on
egg production and eggshell thickness of chicken* Bull* Environ.
Contain. Toxicol. 7:9-18.

DHEW (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). 1976.

Human Health and the Environment: Some Research Needs 3 Report of th
Second Task Force for Research Planning in Environmental Health
Science. Public Health Service , National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences , National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Bethesda, Maryland.

DHHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 1984.

Proceedings of the Second National Conference for Food Protection.
May 9-11, 1984. FDA contract No. 223-84-2087. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.

Doull, J., C. D. Klaassen, and M. 0. Amdur. 1980. Toxicology: The
Basic Science of Poisons. Macmillan, New York.

Doyle, J. J. 1979. Toxic and essential elements in bone a review.
J. Anim. Sci. 49:482-497.

Doyle, J. J., and J. E. Spaulding. 1978. Toxic and essential trace
elements in meat a review. J. Anim. Sci. 47:398-419.

Drotman, P. D., P. J. Baxter, J. A. Liddle, C. D. Brokopp, and M. D.

Skinner. 1983. Contamination of the food chain by polychlorinated
biphenyls from a broken transformer. Am. J. Publ. Health 73:290-292

Druley, R. M. , and G. L. Ordway. 1977. The Toxic Substances
Control Act. Bureau of National Affairs, Washington, D.C.

Dubbert, W. H. 1984. The new look of meat and poultry inspection. J.
Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 184:266-271.

Edwards, W. C., and B. Wiedemann. 1980. Lead poisoning in the bovine
animal. Bovine Practitioner 15:150-151.

Farber, T. M. 1983. Regulatory Requirements for the Approval of Drugs
Used in Food Animals. Presented at the Second International
Conference on Safety Evaluation and Regulation of Chemicals.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, October 24-28, 1983.

Fazio, T., and J. W. Howard. 1983. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in
foods. Pp. 461-505 in A. L. F. Bjorseth, ed. Handbook of Polycycli
Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Marcel Dekker, New York.

FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 1981. Proposed Rules, 21 CFR

Chapter I. FDA ANPRM for Regulating Irradiated Foods. Fed. Regist.
46(59): 18992-18994.

Fick, K. R., C. B. Ammerman, S. M. Miller, C. F. Simpson, and P. E.
Loggins. 1976. Effect of dietary lead on performance, tissue
mineral composition and lead absorption in sheep. Jo Anim. Sci.
42:515-523.

Food Safety Council. 1979. Principles and Processes for Making Food

Safety Decisions. Report of the Social and Economic Committee. Foe
Safety Council, Washington, D.C.

Frank, R. , H. E. Braun, M. Holdrinet, D. P. Dodge, and S. J. Nepszy.
1978. Residues of organochlorine insecticides and polychlorinated
biphenyls in fish from lakes St. Clair and Erie, Canada, 1968-1976.
Pestic. Monit. J. 12:69-80.

Graham, H. D. 1980. The Safety of Foods, Second edition. AVI
Publishing, Westport, Connecticut.

Greig, W. S. 1984. Economics and Management of Food Processing. AVI
Publishing, Westport, Connecticut.

Hansen, L. G. 1979. Selective accumulation and depletion of

polychlorinated biphenyl components: Food animal implications. Ann
N.Y. Acad. Sci. 320:238-246.

Harris, R. S., and E. Karmas. 1975. Nutritional Evaluation of Food

Processing, Second edition. AVI Publishing, Westport, Connecticut.

Heidelbaugh, N. D. 1982. Veterinary food hygiene year 2000:

Circumstances and needs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 181:1536-1539.

Houston, D. L. 1984a. Food safety and inspection service.
Fed. Veterinarian 41:1-4.

Houston, D. L. 1984b. Impact of technology and funding on meat and
poultry inspection. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 185:1505-1507.

ILSI (International Life Sciences Institute). 1984. Symposium on
safety assessment: The interface between science, law and
regulation. September 12-14, 1983, Arlington, Virginia. Sponsored
by the International Life Sciences Institute, Washington, D. C.
Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 4:S261-S443.

Jelliffe, E. F., and D. B. Jelliffe, eds. 1982. Adverse Effects of
Foods. Plenum Press, New York.

Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee. 1981. Wholesomeness of

Irradiated Food. Technical Report Series 659. World Health
Organization, Geneva.

Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives . 1984.

Evaluation of Certain Food Additives and Contaminants. Technical
Report Series 710. World Health Organization, Geneva.

Joint FAO/WHO Committee. 1976. Pesticide Residues in Food. Technical
Report Series 592. World Health Organization, Geneva.

Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. 1980. Evaluation of
Certain Food Additives. Technical Report Series 648. World Health
Organization, Geneva.

Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. 1983. Evaluation of
Certain Food Additives and Contaminants. Technical Report Series
696. World Health Organization, Geneva.

Jones, D. H., N. S. Platonow, and S. Safe. 1975. Contamination of
agricultural products by halogenated biphenyls. Can. Vet. J.
16:349-356.

Jul, M. 1984. The Quality of Frozen Foods. Academic Press, New York.

Karel, M. , and N. D. Heidelbaugh. 1975. Effects of packaging on
nutrients. Pp. 412-462 in R. S. Harris and E. Karmas, eds.
Nutritional Evaluation of Food Processing, Second edition. AVI
Publishing, Westport, Connecticut.

Khan, M. A., and R. H. Stanton. 1981. Toxicology of Halogenated

Hydrocarbons; Health and Ecological Effects. Pergamon Press, New
York.

Kimbrough, R. D., ed. 1980. Halogenated Biphenyls, Terphenyls,
Naphthalenes, Dibenzodioxins and Related Products.
Elsevier /North-Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam.

Kroger, M. , and J. S. Smith. 1984. An overview of chemical aspects of
food safety. Food Technol. 38:62-64.

Lee, F. A. 1983. Basic Food Chemistry, Second edition. AVI
Publishing, Westport, Connecticut.

Ley, F. J. 1983. New Interest in the use of irradiation in the food
industry. Pp. 113-129 in T. A. Roberts and F. A. Skinner, eds. Foo
Microbiology: Advances and Prospects. Academic Press, New York.

McCormick, D. 1985. One bug's meat. Biotechnology 3:429-435.

Mead, G. C., B. W. Adams, and R. T. Parry. 1975. The effectiveness of
in-plant chlorination in poultry processing. Br. Poult. Sci.
16:517-526.

Meyer, L. H., ed. I960- Food Chemistry. Reinhold Organic Chemistry
and Biochemistry Textbook Series. Reinhold, New York*

Meyers, T. R. 1984* A limited epizootic of neuroblastoma in coho

salmon reared in chlorinated-dechlorinated water. J. Natl. Cancer
Inst. 72:229-310.

NRC (National Research Council). 1973. Toxicants Occurring Naturally
in Foods, Second edition. Committee on Food Protection, Food and
Nutrition Board. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, B.C.

NRC (National Research Council). 1974. Nutrients and Toxic Substances
in Water for Livestock and Poultry. Committee on Animal Nutrition,
Board on Agriculture and Renewable Resources. Commission on Natural
Resources. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, B.C.

NRC (National Research Council). 1979. Interactions of Mycotoxins in
Animal Production. Proceedings of a Symposium, July 13, 1978,
Michigan State University. National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
B.C.

NRC (National Research Council). 1981. Food Chemicals Codex, Third
edition. Committee on Codex Specifications, Food and Nutrition
Board, Bivision of Biological Sciences, Assembly of Life Sciences.
National Academy Press, Washington, B.C.

NRC (National Research Council). 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal
Government: Managing the Process. Committee on the Institutional
Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health. National Academy
Press, Washington, B.C.

Oehme, F. W., ed. 1978. Toxicity of Heavy Metals in the Environment,
Part 1. Marcel Bekker, New York.

Oehme, F. W., ed. 1979. Toxicity of Heavy Metals in the Environment,
Part 2. Marcel Bekker, New York.

Osheim, B. L., P. F. Ross, and H* A. Nelson. 1982. PCB residues in

feedlot steers. II. Tissue levels. Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol.
28:716-717.

OTA (Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress). 1979.

Environmental Contaminants in Food. U. S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.

Pearson, A. M., and F. W. Tauber. 1984. Processed Meats, Second
edition. AVI Publishing, Westport, Connecticut.

Preussmann, R. 1978. Toxicological aspects of food safety

carcinogenicity and mutagenicity. Arch. Toxicol. l(Suppl. ): 69-84.

Rehwoldt, R. 1984. NAS/NRC releases new figures on food chemicals
usage. Food Toxicol. 38:66-68

Roberts, H. R., ed 1981* Food Safety. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Rodricks, J. V., C. W. Hesseltine, and M. A. Mehlman, eds. 1977.

Mycotoxins in Human and Animal Health. Proceedings of a Conference
on Mycotoxins in Human and Animal Health, University of Maryland,
College Park, Maryland. October 4-8, 1976. Pathotox Publishers,
Park Forest South, Illinois.

Russell, L. H. , Jr. 1978. Heavy metals in food of animal origin.
Pp. 3-23 in F. W. Oehme, ed. Toxicity of Heavy Metals in the
Environment, Part I. Marcel Dekker, New York.

Sacharow, S. 1979. Packaging Regulations. AVI Publishing,
Wes tport , Connecticut .

Safe, S. 1982. Halogenated hydrocarbons and aryl hydrocarbons

identified inhuman tissues. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 5:153-165.

Schell, 0. 1984. Modern Meat. Random House, New York.

Sleight, S. D. 1979. Polybrominated biphenyls: A recent

environmental pollutant. Pp. 366-374 in Animals as Monitors of
Environmental Pollutants. Proceedings of a Symposium on Pathobiology
of Environmental Pollutants: Animal Models and Wildlife as
Monitors. University of Connecticut, 1977. National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Touf exis , A. 1984. Linking drugs to the dinner table. Time
124:77.

U.S. Congress. 1979. Food Safety: Where are We? Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Ninety-Sixth Congress, First
Session, July 1979. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1980. Report on the PCS

incident in Western United States. Food Safety and Quality Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture 3 Washington, D.C.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1983a. Prevention A

New Direction in Reducing The Risk of Chemical Residues in Meat and
Poultry. Pp. 21-23 in Food Safety and Inspection Service Program
Plan Fiscal Year 1984. Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1983b. Protection and

Productivity: The Strategy for Meat and Poultry Inspection in the
1980 f s. Food Safety and Inspection Service a U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1984. Compound Evaluation and
Analytical Capability. Science Program, Food Safety and Inspection
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1985. Compound Evaluation and
Analytical Capability: Annual Residue Plan. Science Program, Food
Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.

Vettorazzi, G. , ed. 1980. Handbook of International Food Regulatory
Toxicology, Volume 1: Evaluations. Spectrum Publications, Jamaica,
New York.

Zoeteman, B. C. J., J. Hrubec, E. de Greef, and H. J. Kool. 1982.
Mutagenic activity associated with by-products of drinking water
disinfection by chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozone and
UV-irradiation. Environ. Health Perspect. 46:197-205.

Meat and Poultry Production

The human health risks presented by meat and poultry may be
substantially affected by animal production practices. The ingredients
of the animals 1 feed, the environmental and hygienic conditions under
which they are raised , and the modes of their transportation and
marketing determine how and where various hazardous agents could enter
the meat and poultry supply* Although inspection of the production
phase is not under the jurisdiction of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS), the committee believes that a comprehensive account of
meat and poultry production practices sets the stage for the discussion
of various contaminants detected during inspection.

This chapter describes where and how food-animals are produced and
the infrastructure that supports production. Cattle, swine, sheep,
chickens, and turkeys are emphasized because they provide most of the
animal protein in the U.S. diet.

PRODUCTION AND FEEDING ENVIRONMENTS

Animals are the sum of the inputs, both planned and accidental, that
contribute to their growth at any stage in their life. Although this
chapter provides a review of the production environment, it is importan
to understand that the feed constituents the grains and forages are
often grown by someone other than the animal producer. Thus the feed
may contain chemical substances unknown to the producer.

Cattle

Beef cattle are raised throughout the country, but 49% of beef cows
(breeding-age females) are produced in Iowa, Missouri, and the six
eastern Great Plains states (Boykin <et al. , 1980). Twelve southeastern
states account for another 26% of all U.S. beef cows. The regions wher<
beef cows are produced differ from areas that produce finishing or fed
cattle those given grain or other concentrates (rather than being left
to graze pasture or rangeland) to achieve a U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture (USDA) slaughter grade of at least "Good. 11 According to an
estimate for 1978 (Bovkin et al.. 1980). there were 39 million beef row

become finishing cattle or beef cows) in the nation 1 s 48 contiguous
states* From 1968 to 1982, total annual production of beef and veal
ranged between 36 billion and 44 billion pounds (USDA, 1983). The
number of cattle increased 21% between 1968 and 1975. In 1982, 94% of
the cattle and 88% of the calves were slaughtered in federally inspected
facilities s 5% of cattle and 9% of calves in state-inspected facilities,
and 1% of cattle and 3% of calves on farms. The percentage of federally
inspected cattle and calves increased from 81% in 1968 to 93% in 1982.

Cattle feeding is much more common in North America than in other
parts of the world* The practice expanded rapidly from 1960 through the
early 1970s because of low-cost grain and a strong demand for beef (Van
Arsdall and Nelson, 1983). Typically 100-500 cattle are in each open
lot, unprotected from the weather, often with a dirt mound in the
center. Feedlots usually keep their pens full year-round to make
optimal use of capital resources, though the mud caused by prolonged wet
weather may result in reduced weight gains and force closure until the
pens dry out.

Forty years ago, nearly all cattle were fed on small farms, mostly
in the north central region of the United States. Now cattle feeding
is practiced throughout the country, but feedlots are concentrated in
the western Corn Belt, the eastern Great Plains, and the High Plains of
Texas. On the average, from 1977 to 1980 nearly 22 million fed cattle
were marketed annually from only 11 states (Van Arsdall and Nelson,
1983). This pattern developed largely because of climatic and feed-
cost advantages (Schertz et_ al_. , 1979).

Grains make up the bulk of the rations for fed cattle; corn is the
principal source, but milo, wheat, and barley are also used as prices
and supplies allow. Protein supplements usually are cottonseed meal,
soybean meal, or urea. Where they are available, by-product feeds such
as beet pulp, molasses, and brewer's grain are fed. Corn silage and
alfalfa hay are the principal roughages. Most feed is purchased hay
and silage are bought from neighboring farmers to minimize transporta-
tion costs, but grains may be shipped great distances. Some cattle are
fed additives to increase food efficiency in the rumen. A low or
subtherapeutic level of antibiotic is often added, and many cattle are
given subcutaneous implants of anabolic steroids.

About 80% of feedlot cattle are purchased at auctions or through
order buyers (Van Arsdall and Nelson, 1983). In 1976-1977, most fed
beef cattle (89%) were purchased from feedlots directly by packers, 7%
moved through markets, and 3% were sold through auctions (Gee et al. ,
1979). Auctions (sale barns) receive cattle, often from as far as 500
miles away. Order buyers, who do not take title to the cattle, act
solely as agents for the feedlots and purchase cattle from markets,
auctions, or dealers or directly from farmers. The period from a few
days before animals move into the feedlot until a week afterward is
risky, and death rates average 1.0% to 1.5% in feedlots (Jensen and
Mackey, 1979). Stresses include shipping, often over great distances,

without normal supplies of feed and water; new sources of feed and
water; strange surroundings; exposures to other cattle that harbor
pathogens; and numerous injections and treatments when entering the
feedlot.

Appendix Tables Al to AS provide details on the number and classes
of cattle, regional distributions , herd sizes, the number and distribu-
tion of feedlots, beef-cattle raising systems, the number of fed cattle
marketed annually, and the number and classes of cattle slaughtered
under federal inspection.

Swine

The number of pigs at any one point in time is more variable than
that of cattle. According to the USDA (1983), 87 million hogs were
produced in the United States in 1982. Pigs range in weight from 25 to
more than 100 pounds when they enter the feeding period, but most are
between 40 and 60 pounds and the average weight in 1975 was 51 pounds
(Van Arsdall, 1978). Some producers sell "feeder pigs 11 to other farmers
at 8 to 9 weeks of age, which allows approximately 3 weeks for the pigs
to grow after they are weaned at 3 to 5 weeks of age. The farmers who
purchase feeder pigs average 132 days from purchase to sale for slaugh-
ter, so these pigs are about 6 months old at slaughter (Van Arsdall,
1978) and weigh on average 223 pounds (Mueller and Kesler, 1983). The
most common type of hog farmer raises pigs from birth through slaughter
(farrow-to-finish enterprises) and markets them at about the same age
and weight.

In the United States, hogs and grain are usually produced on the
same farms. Two-thirds of the total live weight of the nation's hogs
is produced in the Corn Belt and Great Lake states. There has been a
tendency toward fewer and larger farms in the major hog-producing
states, and most (80%) of the marketed hogs come from farrow-to-finish
farms. Homegrown grains provide 80% of hogs 1 needs in the north central
region and 50-75% in the Southeast, but only about 10% in the Southwest.
Although less than half the grain used by producers of feeder pigs is
homegrown, for farrow-to-finish producers, the figure is about 60% (Van
Arsdall, 1978). Grain for pigs must be supplemented with additional
protein, minerals, salt, and vitamins. These must be purchased, and
most producers with larger farms also add a growth-permit tant antibiotic
(at a subtherapeutic level) to the ration to improve feed efficiency and
growth rates (Crom and Duewer, 1980; Van Arsdall, 1978). (A growth-
permittant antibiotic surpresses unwanted intestinal bacteria and there-
by permits animals to more fully reach their growth potential.) More
than 75% of farrow-to-finish producers, 63% of feeder-to-finish produc-
ers, and only 34% of feeder-pig producers make their own mix of corn,
supplements, and antibiotics (Mueller and Kesler, 1983; Van Arsdall,
1978).

Until the end of World War II, most American farmers farrowed sows
in portable houses that they rotated among clean pastures to control

diseases and parasites. Recently developed methods for controlling
infections have enabled farmers to use a central farrowing house and to
farrow sows year-round. Since weaning is a stressful period for pigs,
approximately 40% are moved from a central farrowing house into a
nursery when they reach about 30 to 40 pounds body weight and remain
there about 1 month (Mueller and Kesler, 1983; Van Arsdall, 1978).
During this period they usually are given a starter ration specially
formulated for weaned pigs, including added vitamins, minerals, and
growth-permit t ant antibiotics*

Up to 20% of the largest farms now raise hogs in confinement,
allowing them no access to outside areas from birth to sale for slaugh-
ter (Mueller and Kesler, 1983)* However, about half the feeders and
the majority of finishing pigs still have access to the outdoors*
Nationally, 22% of farms (mostly in the Southeast) furnished no shelter
to finishing pigs in 1980 (Mueller and Kesler, 1983). Open-front build-
ings house nearly one-third of finishing pigs; for hogs in fully
enclosed buildings, slotted floors with a pit below have become increas-
ingly frequent especially among the larger farms.

Most slaughter hogs (70%) are sold directly to slaughterhouses (Van
Arsdall and Nelson, 1984). About 12% were marketed through terminal
markets, 8% through auctions, and 8% through order buyers (Mueller and
Kesler, 1983). Improved refrigeration has permitted new efficient
slaughter and processing plants to be located where pigs are finished,
and many older plants near population and consumption centers have been
closed.

For details of the number and distribution of hogs, production
facilities, marketing conditions, and average numbers slaughtered, see
Appendix Tables A9 to A15.

Sheep

The number of sheep and lambs in the United States has fallen from
more than 55 million in 1942 to less than 12 million in 1983. As a
result, meat from sheep now accounts for less than 1% of the red meat
consumed in this country. The proportion of sheep raised in various
regions has remained relatively constant for 30 years. In 1982, Texas
had 2.2 million stocker sheep (young animals suitable for being fed or
to enter the breeding flock), Wyoming had 1.0 million, and California
had 1.0 million, in total constituting 37% of the nation's sheep. The
top 10 states had more than 70% of all stocker sheep. Dryland farming
typifies the major sheep states.

Federal ranges provide half the feed for sheep in the West (Parker
and Pope, 1983). They are managed extensively, often in high rangeland.
Many animals are moved to high mountain meadows for summer grazing. In
the fall, before heavy snowfalls, they are returned to lower elevations,
where they may be housed and maintained during the winter largely on
stored feed, until well after lambing in late winter or early spring.

Grazing begins in the spring at the lower elevations and follows the
receding snow toward higher elevations as spring and summer progress .

Mechanization, self -feeding of concentrates, low-cost nonconvention-
al feeds tuffs, and enterprise specialization have contributed to fewer
and larger lamb feeding operations (Parker and Pope, 1983)- These
trends toward more intensive management allow more health maintenance
programs than are possible under extensive range conditions.

Zeranol (benzoxacyclotetradecin derivative) is the only anabolic
agent currently approved for sheep. Although others are effective,
according to published data (Parker and Pope, 1983), they lack Food and
Drug Administration approval. The small size of the sheep market in
contrast to the markets for cattle, pigs, and broilers makes it un-
attractive for pharmaceutical companies. The lack of clearances of new
compounds or Pharmaceuticals for sheep has been described as a major
deterrent to improvements in the efficiency with which animals assimi-
late food for growth (Parker and Pope, 1983). Thus, current production
systems and economics present little risk of contamination of sheep
meat with medications and feed additivies.

Appendix Tables A16 to A18 indicate the number of sheep and lambs,
their regional distribution, and the average numbers slaughtered.

Chickens

Broilers account for the vast majority of poultry meat nearly 95%
of all chickens are broilers. The number and total weight of broilers
have risen steadily over the last 15 years, reaching more than 4 billion
chickens representing 16.8 billion pounds in 1982. Approximately 36% of
the farms that raised broilers in 1978 produced more than 100,000, but
they accounted for nearly 82% of all broiler production (Lasley, 1983).
The total number of chickens raised for eggs has remained relatively
stable since 1968 at 250 million per year.

Vertical integration (coordination of all phases of production and
marketing) is virtually complete in the U.S. broiler industry, where 99%
of broilers are owned or contracted for by one dec is ion -making unit of
the industry. During the last 30 years, the poultry industry has moved
from the northeastern and north central states to those in the South,
which produced 44% of the eggs and 88% of the broilers in the country in
1980.

Improved disease control and nutrition allow producers to raise
broilers in total confinement in large floor-pens, each with 10,000 to
20,000 birds (Lasley, 1983). The environment is controlled by supple-
mental heat or by natural ventilation. Evaporative cooling is used when
air movement alone is insufficient to keep the birds comfortable. These
housing systems permit year-round use of floor-pens, with up to five
grow-outs (flocks) yearly. This results in efficient use of capital
resources and encourages use of new technology.

Broiler bedding (most often hardwood shavings) often is reused for
five or six grow-outs, with some fresh bedding added each time* Litter
may be changed completely only about once yearly. Broilers may thus be
exposed to diseases and parasites in the litter, so control programs are
mandatory. For example 3 virtually all broilers are given a coccidio-
stat. The vast majority are also given a growth-permit tant antibiotic
mixed in the feed (North, 1984). The consensus in the industry is that
without these additives, production costs would increase because of
mortality and morbidity, and feed efficiency among the chickens that
did not die would be seriously reduced.

Broiler producers grow little or none of their own feed. Broiler
rations include added vitamins, minerals, and an arsenical along with
the coccidiostat and antibiotic (North, 1984). Most rations are based
on corn and soybean-oil meal that may be delivered by the carload to
large producers. They are generally fed as mash in automatic feeders,
but increasing numbers of producers pellet the ration because birds
consume pelleted feed faster and the ingredients in mash sometimes
settle unevenly. Animal and fish protein supplements may harbor
microbiological contaminants such as salmonellae, which may infect
broilers and eventually pose a serious human health risk. Pelleting
destroys some salmonellae, but pasteurization is needed to kill them all
(North, 1984).

The number of chickens, their regional distribution, farm sizes,
feeding conditions, and numbers slaughtered by class are detailed in
Appendix Tables A19 to A23.

^Turkeys

In 1982, 184 million light and heavy breed (more than 12 pounds)
turkeys were hatched in the United States (USDA, 1983), Turkey produc-
tion is highly specialized and localized: Hatcheries in California,
Missouri, Minnesota, and North Carolina produce 56% of all turkey
poults. Ten states accounted for 81% of all U.S. turkey production in
1982, and 97% of the turkeys were slaughtered under federal inspection
(USDA, 1983).

The industry is also vertically integrated 90% of the market outlet
is determined before the poults are produced (Lasley, 1983). This
degree of specialization, similar to that for broiler chickens, is a
result of technical advances in management. Improved nutrition and
disease control, in particular, allow producers to raise turkeys in
total confinement houses (Lasley, 1983) in floor-pens containing 5,000
to 10,000 birds each. The environment may be controlled by supplemen-
tal heat or by natural ventilation. Evaporative cooling is used when
air movement alone cannot keep the turkeys comfortable. These systems
allow year-round use of the houses, with up to three grow-outs each
year. Feeding and waste disposal are similar to those described for
broilers, including a coccidiostat, an arsenical, and growth-permittant
antibiotics, as well as added vitamins and minerals.

Appendix Tables A24 and A25 give the number of turkeys hatched, bred,
and sold.

TRANSPORTATION

Many young meat -animals, especially cattle and pigs, are produced at
one location and transported elsewhere, often far away, for further
growth (finishing) before slaughter. This practice creates unusual
health risks for the animals sometimes leading to threats to human
health. As mentioned with regard to cattle, long-distance transport,
often without adequate feed or water, is directly stressful and may
reduce the animals' immunological responsiveness. During such moves,
the animals almost always have new sources of feed and water, and they
may be exposed to new cohorts of animals that harbor infections not
pre-viously encountered. Furthermore, information on the origin of the
animals, and thus any history of medication or food additives, is often
lost during movement to distant feeding locations.

Many of the calves moved from farms to auctions and then to feedlots
must be treated for "shipping fever" soon after they reach their desti-
nation. The Pharmaceuticals used at this time are no threat to humans
because the cattle are slaughtered after reaching marke t weight several
months later. These drugs may become a human health threat only in the
unlikely event of emergency slaughter of recently treated animals.

In the poultry industry, in contrast, there is very little movement
during the production process, except when day-old chicks and poults
are moved from the hatcheries.

HEALTH MAINTENANCE AND DISEASE

Infectious and parasitic diseases and infestations are significant
economic factors because they can cause death, inefficient utilization
of feed, lower reproductive efficiency, or increases in time from pro-
duction to slaughter. Many are also significant public health hazards
during production, at slaughter, or when the meat or poultry is eaten.
Thus measures that reduce the level of infection in the production
environment will reduce the introduction of those agents into the human
food chain.

Health maintenance and disease control systems during production
range from professionally supervised, comprehensive herd-wide health
preventive medicine programs to minimal disease control by producers
without professional animal health care. The widest range exists in the
poultry industry. Large integrated operations have veterinary medical
units, with one or more veterinarians providing health maintenance and
disease control programs, whereas small, backyard flocks may have no
health system at all other than advice from a feed supplier regarding
the medicated feeds used.

Regardless of the species, health maintenance and disease prevention
programs rely on a combination of prophylactic and therapeutic measures
using biologies and medications. Vaccines of various kinds are given
to prevent diseases that are economically important and that may also
have public health significance. In addition to these, most producers
rely on a variety of prophylactic medications, particularly antimicro-
bials and anthelmintics , to prevent or at least reduce the prevalence
of infectious agents and parasites (see Chapter 4).

Health plans designed, supervised, and performed by professionals
are likely to include vaccinations, medications, and examinations on a
strict age-related schedule from the time animals enter the production
unit until they leave it. However, no meat or poultry animals of the
species considered in this report are vaccinated primarily to protect
the public health. Although vaccination against such diseases as
brucellosis and leptospirosis are of public health significance, the
protection is provided primarily because of the economic consequences
of such diseases- Vaccinations against bovine viral diarrhea,
pseudorabies in swine, and infectious bronchitis in chickens have no
direct public health considerations. They result in a generally
healthier population that is more resistant to infectious agents that
may have public health consequences*

To avoid contamination of meat and meat products from residual feed
additives (subtherapeutic doses) and medications, the FDA regulations
establish withdrawal periods before the animals are marketed. This
period ensures that the animals do not contain any residues above per-
mitted levels at the time of slaughter.

State and federal regulatory programs are significant components of
health maintenance and disease control programs. During more than a
century of federal programs, established originally as the Bureau of
Animal Industry, several major livestock diseases have been excluded,
eradicated, or controlled. Most regulatory programs were not designed
primarily for public health purposes. Nevertheless, some, such as those
for tuberculosis and brucellosis, had public health advantages. Infec-
tious organisms such as these have been largely eliminated from food-
animals in the United States, whereas others such as salmonellae and
coliforms in food-animals continue to present serious public health
threats.

THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH

Better control of any infectious agent in a food-animal population
would reduce the number of human infections associated with the consump-
tion of meat. An animal infected with or carrying an infectious or
parasitic organism to which humans are susceptible is a potential public
health hazard. Although the exact mechanism by which these diseases are
transmitted is not known, contact with animals and carcasses and con-
sumption of infected animal products were for a long time implicated in

such transmission* The diseases that are of significant public health
concern in the production environment include brucellosis, tuberculosis,
salmonellosis , cysticercosis , and trichinosis* The agents of concern
include Campy lobacter spp. and hemorrhagic coliforms. (These and other
hazards are described in Chapters 3 and 7.)

No health status assessment is required in the United States before
or as animals leave the production unit. Unless microorganisms produce
some clinical symptom, such as septicemia, they are undetected as they
enter the food chain* A local buyer or trucker buys the animals in
lots, and the animals may change hands several times before slaughter.
A producer, therefore, may have little to lose by sending a sick animal
to slaughter.

For many years the major means of control over the entry of
infectious organisms into the food chain was inspection just before
animals were slaughtered. Eventually, this antemortem inspection was
supplemented by federal and state regulatory programs to eradicate or
control the disease in the animal population. The statistical summary
of causes of condemnation published annually by FSIS indicates few
specific causes among the approximately 40 tabulated. For example,
human pathogens such as salmonellae, coliforms, Campy lobacter , and
trichinae are not named as causes for condemnation.

In the present system, the chance of a diseased animal being traced
to the producer is very small. Normally, approximately 10% of the
cattle and 30% of the swine that are condemned are traced back to their
origin. Providing a health status certificate for animals as they leave
production units would be a way to trace disease. Such a system would
depend on a positive animal identification system and would yield
important information from the farm, such as the use of medication and
knowledge about possible residues and contaminants, as well as enabling
diseased animals to be traced (Jagger, 1984).

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The production environment of food-animals has changed considerably
since 1940. There are fewer farms and those that remain are larger.
Production units for all classes of food-animals have grown and often
the producers have no control over the ingredients of their feed.

Although beef cattle are produced throughout the United States, 75%
come from the Great Plains states or from the Southeast. Most calves
are moved to feedlots in the regions where feed grains are produced.
Thus, two-thirds of the nation's hogs are produced in the high corn-
production areas the Corn Belt and the Great Lakes states. Most hogs
are sold directly to packers, and the slaughterhouses are located
primarily in the regions where hogs are finished. There has been a
sharp trend toward fewer and larger hog farms; in the major hog states,
80% of market hogs come from feeder-to-finish farms.

The proportion of sheep produced in different parts of the country
has been unchanged for about 30 years; most are managed extensively in
the West and Southeast , in areas of low rainfall* Broiler production,
on the other hand, is concentrated in the Southeast* As for turkeys,
California 5 Minnesota, and North Carolina are the leading producers.

The poultry industry is relatively easier to manage because most
of it is vertically integrated and all phases production through
marketing are under the same management* The pork industry may be
integrated along similar lines in a few years. The cattle industry,
however, is very complicated, and the animals are raised, fed,
transported, and marketed under different conditions. Animals often
change hands several times, through being auctioned and trucked, before
they reach the slaughterhouses. The red-meat industry, as of now, is
far from being vertically integrated.

Federal and state animal health regulatory programs, along with the
high level of veterinary medical care in the private sector, provide
healthy livestock and poultry. Despite this, there remain many infec-
tious and parasitic agents that can find their way into the human food
chain through meat and poultry products. In the past, the major efforts
to reduce such public health hazards have taken place during slaughter-
ing and processing. There is a need to reduce or eliminate those
hazards before the animals arrive at slaughter.

A number of permanent animal identification systems have been
researched, proposed, and, in some cases, tested. However, the lack of
a national animal disease surveillance system and of animal
identification and trace-back systems is a significant deterrent to the
further reduction of the human pathogens in food-animals. Preventive
medicine and herd health programs already in place provide producers
with an opportunity to have a systematic health care and disease
prevention program throughout the production cycle.

More effort should be made to detect and control infectious and toxic
agents in meat and poultry, the committee notes, as opposed to the
current emphasis on gross lesions and other signs at slaughter. Such
agents can and should be addressed on the farm and at other points in
the production cycle, not just at slaughter or during processing* The
human health threat from animal tuberculosis was eliminated by action
programs on farms. Similar action could be equally effective in reduc-
ing human health threats from other zoonotic diseases and from chemical
contaminants. The producers of food-animals might take more responsi-
bility for these matters if slaughtered animals could be traced back to
the farm.

The committee recommends four major steps to improve animal health
and reduce the threat food-animals may pose to human health:

% An animal identification system should be created to allow
diseased or contaminated animals to be traced to their source, to

increase the farmer f s share of responsibility for contamination, and to
facilitate epidemiological studies of specific disease outbreaks*

<> All USDA animal disease surveillance programs should be designed
and implemented to use fully the animal disease prevalence data avail-
able from meat and poultry inspection and to ensure that FSIS routinely
trace disease and contamination back to their source.

An interagency center should be established to monitor the status
of animal diseases nationally, to serve as a central repository of
animal disease statistics, and to develop and recommend ways to reduce
the threat of epidemics and thereby improve both animal and human
health.

Because infectious agents and toxic chemicals are initially
introduced during the production of food-animals, FSIS should consider
ways to minimize or eliminate their entry at this point.

REFERENCES

Boykin, C. C., H. C. Gilliam, and R. A. Gustafson. 1980.

Structural Characteristics of Beef Cattle Raising in the United
States. Agricultural Economic Report No. 450. Economics,
Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Crom, R. , and L. Duewer. 1980. Trends and Developments in the
Hog-Pork Industry. ESS Staff Report No. AGESS801027. National
Economics Division, Economics and Statistics Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Gee, C. K. , R. N. Van Arsdall, and R. A. Gustafson. 1979. U.S.
Fed-Beef Production Costs, 1976-77, and Industry Structure.
Agricultural-Economics Report No. 424. Economics, Statistics, and
Cooperatives Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C.

Jagger, F. 1984. Towards a 'revolution' in meat hygiene. Vet.
Rec. 114:441-442.

Jensen, R. , and D. R. Mackey. 1979. Diseases of Feed Lot Cattle,
Third edition. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia.

Las ley, F. A. 1983. The U.S. Poultry Industry: Changing Economics
and Structure. Agricultural Economic Report No. 502. Economic
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Mueller, A. G. , and R. P. Kesler. 1983. The Midwest Hog Industry:
A Brief Review. 83 E-273. Prepared for the 1984 Illinois Swine
Seminars. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of
Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois .

North, M. 0. 1984* Commercial Chicken Production Manual, Third

edition. Animal Science Textbook Series. AVI Publishing, Westport,
Connecticut.

Parker, C. F. , and A. L. Pope. 1983. The U.S. sheep industry:
Changes and challenges. J. Anim. Sci. 57(Suppl. 2):75-99.

Schertz, L. P., et^ ad. 1979. Another Revolution in U.S. Farming?

Agricultural Economic Report No. 441. Economics, Statistics, and

Cooperatives Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
B.C.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1983. Agricultural Statistics,
1983. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Van Arsdall, R. N. 1978. Structural Characteristics of the U.S. Hog
Production Industry. Agricultural Economic Report No. 415.
Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Van Arsdall, R. N. , and K. E. Nelson. 1983. Characteristics of Farmer
Cattle Feeding. Agricultural Economic Report No. 503. Economic
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Van Arsdall, R. N., and K. E. Nelson. 1984. The U.S. Hog Industry.
Agricultural Economic Report No. 511. Economic Research Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Slaughter and Inspection
of Meat and Poultry

The Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 (P.L. 59-242), as amended,
requires that each food-animal slaughtered in a federal or state
establishment be examined before, during, and after slaughter. These
ante- and postmortem inspections are conducted by veterinarians, or by
trained inspectors working under their supervision, who have the
professional knowledge required to evaluate the signs and lesions that
occur in food-animals and to determine the animals * acceptability as food
for humans. Because such scientific disciplines as anatomy, pathology,
physiology, parasitology, biochemistry, and bacteriology are needed to
implement the meat inspection program, general oversight of all areas is
assigned to veterinarians (Brandly ej: ajL* , 1966; Libby, 1975).
Veterinarians who enter the meat inspection program receive additional
training to enhance the part of their education that is relevant to meat
hygiene and to ensure that their work meets high standards of competence
and uniformity (Brandly e al. , 1966).

The veterinarians receive counsel and reports on their work from
experienced supervisors, as well as continuing education in comparative
medicine, zoonotic diseases, toxicology, and other aspects of meat
hygiene. Four pathology laboratories, staffed by veterinary pathologists
who are experts on relating gross and microscopic lesions of food-animals
to their suitability for food, are available for advice and to provide
laboratory assistance as required.

ANTEMORTEM INSPECTION

Antemortem inspection has long been part of the total examination of
red-meat animals destined for slaughter and is critical to the overall
public protection goals of meat inspection (Booz-Allen, 1977b). Federal
regulations require that all meat-animals intended for slaughter in a
federal establishment be subjected to such an inspection both in motion
and at rest on the day of slaughter. Some diseases (e.g., rabies,
listeriosis, and heavy metal toxicoses) have distinct clinical signs that
cannot be detected by gross postmortem inspection (Libby, 1975).

Furthermore, some microbial diseases that can seriously contaminate the
slaughter environment (abscesses, anthrax) may be detected by thorough
antemortem inspection, thus preventing the animal from entering the
s laughterhouse .

The general purpose of antemortem inspection of red-meat animals is to
determine whether each animal presented for slaughter is normal or
abnormal- Those designated as normal are sent directly to be killed;
those found to be abnormal are categorized according to perceived risks as
unfit for slaughter, affected with a localized condition, or having a
condition that does not render the animal unfit but that might influence
carcass disposition upon postmortem examination (Libby, 1975).

Each year since 1917 an average of 99.7% of inspected animals have
passed antemortem inspection (Booz-Allen, 1977b). Because of the high
proportion of healthy animals presented for slaughter, a variable
intensity of antemortem inspection, based on some valid sampling plan,
might be more desirable.

In 1982, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved a plan that
allows plant management to elect an alternative procedure if (1) the
facilities and volume of operations are suitable, as determined by the
area supervisor; (2) all abnormal animals are segregated; and (3) all
animals (abnormal and normal) are held until examined by the inspector.
Under this plan, the inspector must examine all animals designated to be
normal by the establishment while they are "at rest"; select 5% to 10% of
such animals from several lots and observe them on both sides while in
motion; and examine each segregated abnormal animal, both at rest and in
motion, and tag any that are suspect (USDA, 1983b). These suspect animals
are examined more closely to determine their disposition.

The Wholesome Poultry Products Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-492) left the
extent of antemortem inspection of poultry to the discretion of the
Secretary of Agriculture. The large number of chickens and turkeys
slaughtered annually in the United States (more than 4.5 billion birds in
fiscal year 1983) makes bird-by-bird antemortem inspection impossible
under current handling procedures. Thus, the veterinary medical officer
(VMO) or food inspector (for slaughter) from USDA's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) examines the birds before slaughter on a flock
or lot basis. Poultry are observed while they are in coops or batteries
before or after removal from trucks (USDA, 1983b). Those found with
abnormal conditions are categorized by perceived risk (Libby, 1975).

The VMO and food inspector (slaughter) are also responsible for
enforcing the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-445).
Since this has no public health implication, the committee did not discuss
this responsibility.

POSTMORTEM INSPECTION

Postmortem inspection of meat animals encompasses a wide variety of
activities (Booz-Allen, 1977a). The steps or factors with direct public
health significance are head, carcass, and viscera inspection; plant
sanitation; sanitary slaughter and dressing; carcass reinspection; poultry
chilling; biological residue monitoring; animal disease surveillance; and
condemnation and final disposition*

The main purpose of postmortem examinations is to detect and eliminate
abnormalities 3 including contamination, in order to ensure that only meat
and poultry fit for human consumption is passed for food. Important
subsidiary aspects are checking the efficacy of slaughter and
carcass-dressing techniques and diagnosing disease conditions for control
programs (Gracey, 1981). These examinations are the focus of an active
inspection program. They provide information indispensable for the
scientific evaluation of clinical signs and pathological processes that
affect the wholesomeness of meat and poultry. In cases where the signs
and lesions leave the final disposition in question, the VMO submits
specimens for laboratory evaluation before making a final determination
(Libby, 1975).

Head, Carcass, and Viscera Inspection

Postmortem inspection of food-animals includes routine examination of
the head and cervical lymph nodes, the visceral and body lymph nodes, the
internal organs, and the exposed portions of the carcass. For red-meat
animals (cattle and swine), the procedure also includes cervical,
visceral, and carcass inspection (Gracey, 1981; Libby, 1975; USDA, 1983b,
1984a).

New methods of inspection in slaughter plants have been instituted, and
more are under development (Table 6-1). The new cattle and swine
slaughtering procedures are both under evaluation (Menning, 1984b). The
changes seem to have achieved their basic aim of improving efficiency of
inspection (Dubbert, 1984), but data to measure the impact of these
changes on public health have not yet been analyzed.

Postmortem inspection of poultry is designed to find different kinds of
problems and involves different procedures (Booz-Allen, 1977a), although
the responsibilities that may affect public health are similar to those
described for red meat.

Modified traditional inspection procedures reduce hand motions of
poultry inspectors by dividing the tasks among three persons, thereby
increasing plant production (USDA, 1983a). These were implemented for
broilers in 1979 and are being adapted for inspecting mature chickens as
well. Initial assessment shows that the Modified Traditional Inspection
Method is faster and has resulted in the same inspection error rate as the
traditional approach (USDA, 1983a).

TABLE 6-1 Meat and Poultry Postmortem Inspection Procedures:
Past, Present, and Proposed a

Traditional

Present

Proposed by USDA

CATTLE

During each of three phases
head, viscera, and carcass
inspection an inspector
performs a sequence of
observing, palpating, and,
for head and viscera
inspection, incising tissues.

Head inspection includes:
observing head's surface

and eyes ;
incising and observing

raandibular, parotid,

atlantal, and suprapharyn-

geal nodes ;
incising and observing

lateral and medial nodes;
incising and observing

masticatory muscles

(cheeks); and
& observing and palpating

tongue.

Viscera inspection includes:
& observing raesenteric nodes,
abdominal viscera, esopha-
gus and spleen, and ventral
surface of lungs ;

observing and palpating
ruminoreticular junction,
costal surfaces of lungs;

observing surfaces of liver;
and

incising and observing
bronchial and mediastinal
lymph nodes, heart, hepatic
nodes, and bile duct.

Carcass inspection includes:

palpating lymph nodes;

observing lumbar region;

observing and palpating
kidneys;

observing diaphragmatic
pillars and peritoneum;

observing and palpating
diaphragm; and

observing pleura, cut
surfaces of muscles and
bones, neck, and carcass
exterior.

The proposed procedure
differs from current
inspection in that it
would:

combine carcass with
viscera inspection, thus
reducing inspection
stations in many places
from three to two;

eliminate the need for
the inspector to observe,
palpate, and incise
certain tissues at both
the head and viscera
station ;

require plants to provide
an employee to palpate
tongue and be responsible
for notifying inspector of
abnormalities ;

remove kidneys from their
capsules for presentation at
viscera station; and

remove dressing defects and
minor conditions (small
bruises, minor adhesions) to
be verified by a reinspection
program rather than by an
inspector at the carcass
station.

The "Beef Carcass
Online Quality Control
System" is under study.

Head inspection would eliminate
The incising of atlantal nodes
(observation still required) and
the palpation of the tongue.

Viscera/carcass inspection would
eliminate:

observation of ventral sur-
faces of lung (though still
requires observation and
palpation of dorsal (costal)
surfaces) ;

incision and observation of
right bronchial node;

incision of hepatic nodes
(observation, required);

palpation of ruminoreticular
junction (observation
required) ;

palpation of diaphragm and
supramammary and internal
iliac lymph nodes (observa-
tion of diaphragm and nodes
required) ;

observation of spinal column

TABLE 6-1 continued

Traditional

Present

Proposed by US DA

SWINE

During each phase head,
viscera, and carcass inspec-
tion an inspector performs
a sequence of observing,
palpating, and, for head
inspection, incising
tissues.

Head inspection includes :
observing back and lead-
ing side of head and
neck ;

incising mandibular lymph
nodes left and right; and

turning carcass and ob-
serving and palpating the
heart.

Viscera inspection includes:

observing and palpating
the spleen;

o observing and palpating
the dorsal surface of the
liver;

palpating the raediastinal
nodes ;

observing and palpating the
dorsal surfaces of the
lungs ; and

observing and palpating
the heart.

Carcass inspection includes:

observing outer part of
leading half of carcass, cut
surfaces, and body cavities
(pelvic, abdominal, and
thoracic) ;

observing and palpating the
kidneys ;

o observing lumbar and neck
regions and outer parts of
trailing half of carcass;
and

directing trim, removing
"retain" tags, or retaining
carcass when required.

In mid-1981, certain
techniques of traditional
swine inspection were
eliminated or replaced
with less intense
measures. For example,
all duplicative examina-
tions were eliminated and
palpation of certain lymph
nodes was replaced by
observation alone.

Inspectors are no longer

required to:

turn the carcass and
observe outside surfaces
(except those of head) at
head inspection station;

$ palpate the spleen, liver,
mediastinal lymph nodes,
lungs, and heart; or

turn the carcass at carcass
inspection station and pal-
pate the kidneys.

a Carcass turning has been
replaced by use of a mirror
and kidney palpation by
turning and observing the
kidneys.

Two major changes are pro-
posed:

Inspection of activities
traditionally conducted at
"carcass inspection station
will be combined with those
at viscera inspection sta-
tion. In some instances,
inspection of head, viscera,
and carcass can be performed
at a single point. Comple-
tion of inspection for all
carcass pathology at the
viscera station will strengthei
the inspection system.
A "Swine Carcass Online System 1
will be implemented for either
scalded or skinned carcasses.
Field trials have been per-
formed, and the system is beinj
refined.

TABLE 6-1 continued

Traditional

Present

Proposed by USDA

POULTRY
Broilers

Ratio of one inspector to
one bird; carcass rotation
required.

A modified traditional
inspection (MTI) was
introduced in 1979. Three
inspectors work in sequence:
One examines the outside of
carcass with aid of mirror;
the other two examine the
ins ides and viscera of every
other carcass.

MTI has three components :

each carcass is examined
by inspector;

plant trimmer is directed
by inspector to trim ab~
no rma 1 i t ie s ; and

inspector verifies trim.

The Hands Off/Hands On inspec-
tion is designed for the fur-
thering of sequence inspection.
Of a team of four inspectors,
the first examines the outside
of carcass, and the second ex-
amines drawn out viscera; both
inspectors use mirrors, not
hands. Each of the other two
inspectors examine insides of
every other bird, using their
hands.

Field trials began in 1982
on new line speed (NE"LS)-k
Speed of NELS depends on plane's
ability to provide inspector
with uniform lots of clean,
healthy, properly presented
birds. Plants would be
responsible for performing
necessary trim of designated
outside defects on passed
carcasses and for operating
an online quality control
program.

Fowl

Same as above. Same as above.

Turkeys

Carcass rotation required; Unchanged.

direct supervision of trim

by inspectors; visceral organs

are observed and palpated.

NELS not yet proposed.

New Turkey Inspection (NT I)
involves no carcass rotation,
no direct supervision of trim,
and visceral organs would be
manipulated rather than pal-
pated. Field trials for NTI
began in 1981 and were com-
pleted in the spring of 1982.
Proposal being prepared for
publication in Federal Register.

a Based on information provided by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA, 1984a) .
b USDA, 1984b.

Additional changes in poultry inspection for broilers are being tested
in the new line speed (NELS) procedure* NELS will allow most broiler
slaughter plants to increase line speeds to approximately 90 birds per
minute* In all cases , the maximum new line speed would depend on a
plant's ability to present the birds in a prescribed manner for inspection
(Dubbert, 1984a). Presently, four U.S. plants are using NELS on a test
basis and a similar procedure for turkeys is being evaluated (Menning,
1984a) Other modifications of poultry inspection procedures are being
proposed or tested (Dubbert, 1984; USDA 3 1984a).

There are as yet no data or information that the committee could use to
appropriately evaluate the public health impact of any line-speed changes
or modifications in inspection procedures.

Plant Sanitation

Inspection for sanitation begins in the livestock and poultry holding
areas and continues through the handling of live animals and poultry,
their carcasses, and the products derived from them. Sanitation includes
structural aspects of the premises, water supply, manure and sewage
disposal, equipment, personnel, and other health-related features of the
plant environment (Libby, 1975).

Slaughter or processing in an unclean environment or under unclean
conditions is prohibited a requirement that is enforced by the
inspector's ability to attach a "reject tag 1 ' to an unacceptable department
or piece of equipment. The tag warns that the department or equipment
identified must not be placed in service until it has been made acceptable
and released for use by the inspector (Libby, 1975). In addition, the
inspector completes a daily sanitation report (MP Form 455, August 1979)
that covers such items as plant cleanliness, rodent-insect control, ice
facilities, and dry storage areas. A copy of the daily report is provided
to the establishment.

Sanitary Slaughter and Dressing

The principal objective of sanitary dressing is to defeather, remove,
or clean skin and to remove the gastrointestinal tract and other internal
organs with minimal contamination of the product. The process is
complicated in animals or birds with localized or generalized diseases,
infections, or contaminations, as many of these are not detected until the
dressing operation has been partially or entirely completed (Libby, 1975).

The prevention of fecal contamination of the carcass from spillage of
gastrointestinal contents or smearing of external fecal matter on the
outside of the animals is the single most important aspect of sanitary
slaughter and dressing. Ideally, slaughter and dressing should be
designed to reduce (or eliminate) fecal contamination. However,
especially in the case of poultry and scalded swine, current practices do
not prevent cross-contamination during these procedures. Indeed, the
major portion of the microbial load on the skin surface of poultry is
established during defeathering (ICMSF, 1980).

Car cas s Re ins pe c t ion

After dressing operations and routine postmortem inspection are
completed, selected samples are reinspected according to a
preestablished sampling piano Defects are evaluated using
accept-reject criteria and the result is extended to all carcasses
represented by the sample* The Acceptable Quality Level also provides
information on the origin, extent, and nature of carcass contamination
so that corrective action directed at the source can be initiated*
This program is now used for both cattle and poultry (USDA, 1983b).

Poultry Chilling

Temperatures and procedures that are necessary for chilling and
freezing ready-to-cook poultry are designed to cool the carcass promptl;
so as to inhibit microbial growth* All poultry that are slaughtered
and eviscerated in an official establishment are chilled to an internal
temperature of 40F (4C) or less within 4 hours (for a 4 Ib.
carcass), 6 hours (4 to 8 Ib. carcass), or 8 hours (more than 8 Ib.
carcass) unless they are to be frozen or cooked immediately at the
establishment. FSIS has responsibility for enforcing the poultry
chilling regulations. Packed poultry held at the plant for more than
24 hours must be kept at 36F (2C) or less. Giblets are chilled
to 40F (4C) or lower within 2 hours from the time they are
removed from the inedible viscera, except when they are cooled with the
carcass (CFR, 1983b). Only ice produced from potable water may be used
for ice and water chilling. The ice is handled and stored in a
sanitary manner; if it is block ice, it is washed by spraying all
surfaces with clean water before crushing.

Biological Residue Monitoring

As described in Chapter 4, the National Residue Program that began
in 1967 has both monitoring and surveillance phases to detect, identify
and record violative levels of chemical residues in meat and poultry
and in their products.

An ima 1 Disease Sur ve i 1 1 anc e

Although slaughter inspection has rarely been used for animal
disease surveillance, bovine tuberculosis (TB) has been monitored in
slaughterhouses. Of the 35 million cattle and calves inspected in
fiscal year 1983, only 27 isolates from 1,578 submissions were
confirmed as Mycobacterium bovi s . Ten isolations were from adult
cattle, 17 were finished cattle, and none were calves. Only 8 of the
27 TB-infected animals identified at slaughter were traced back to the
farm of origin (Essey et al . , 1983; Hosker, 1983).

The identification of these herds demonstrates the value of
epidemiological tracing and the ever-increasing dependence of bovine TB
surveillance on trace-back from regular slaughter animals (Hosker,
1983). It also indicates that certain categories of cattle should

receive greater priority in order to achieve the greatest
identification efficiency. For example, feedlots are the predominant
source of tuberculosis found through slaughter surveillance in the
United States (Essey et_ al . , 1983; Hosker, 1983).

A great deal of the inspection effort as it relates to both beef and
dairy cattle requires the incision and inspection of head and cervical
lymph nodes, of bronchial and mediastinal lymph nodes, and of hepatic
lymph nodes in order to detect tubercular lesions. One of the major
purposes of this extensive and time-consuming activity is the
identification of TB or TB-like lesions for the Cooperative
State-Federal Tuberculosis Eradication Program. Therefore it is
imperative that all TB-positive animals be traced back to farm of
origin. Otherwise, this labor-intensive incision and submission of
lesions by FSIS could continue for years, at great expense.

FSIS is also active in the Bovine and Swine Brucellosis Eradication
Program. A major screening program utilized in brucellosis eradication
is market cattle identification, introduced in 1959. This program
consists of blood testing of cows at market centers and slaughterhouses
to determine whether they have been adequately screened by the
brucellosis ring test of milk. Animals that react to the blood test
are traced to herds of origin, and the complete herd is then tested.

The market cattle program has contributed materially to brucellosis
eradication in most sections of the country. Its universal adoption is
anticipated since it will provide the frequency of screening necessary
to disclose most outbreaks of brucellosis in beef cattle and thereby
help ensure eradication. In addition, continuation of the ring test of
milk and the market cattle testing program in those areas already free
of brucellosis will provide a relatively inexpensive surveillance
program (USDA, 1981). In fiscal year 1983, some 5.8 million cattle
were tested at slaughterhouses: The market cattle reactor rate was
0.38% (Johnson, 1983).

The market swine testing program, analogous to market cattle testing
in the bovine brucellosis program, was initiated in the late 1960s.
Sows and boars are tested for brucellosis at markets and slaughter
plants; for those that react, the herd of origin is traced and tested.
Those found to be infected are slaughtered (USDA, 1981). In fiscal
year 1983, a total of 2.1 million swine were tested at slaughter: The
market swine reactor rate was 0.039% (Johnson, 1983).

In addition, FSIS occasionally collects blood and tissue samples for
surveys of various diseases such as trichinosis and pseudorabies in
swine.

Condemnation and Final Disposition

The criteria for disposition of carcasses and carcass parts after
examination (both ante- and postmortem) and diagnosis are generally the

same for meat-animals and poultry. An entire carcass or parts of it
can be passed for food or condemned (USDA, 1977).

The veterinarian makes a disposition based on five types of
considerations: diseased or abnormal tissue; localized versus
generalized disease and acute versus chronic; derangement of body
functions; injury to consumer's health; and offensive or repugnant
appearance (USDA, n.d.).

Poultry condemnations are recorded in 1 of 11 categories. In fiscal
year 1983, less than 1% of the poultry examined were condemned on
postmortem inspection for all classes of poultry (USDA, 1984c).

Most of the causes of condemnation are attributed to as a lesion or
condition of the carcass rather than to a specific cause (e.g., a
specific infectious agent). Conditions such as peritonitis,
septicemia, abscesses, and pneumonia may be caused by infectious agents
of public health importance. However, there is no provision for
determining the cause of the lesion. On the other hand, many animals
carrying or infected by agents of public health importance do not have
lesions that justify condemnation of the whole or part of the carcass.
The inspection system is not designed to detect human pathogens unless
they produce an observable lesion. This therefore raises a fundamental
question as to what the current inspection procedures provide for the
public. Some effort should be made to address this question, including
listing the diseases identifiable by each step in the inspection
procedures for each species.

A sampling plan for histopathological, microbiological, and
toxicological evaluation of condemned tissues might provide a measure
of the health status of the nation f s herds and flocks. A system that
could identify the specific cause of condemnation and trace back to the
production unit would be invaluable in reducing carcass losses and the
presence of human pathogens.

Condemned animals, poultry carcasses and parts, and meat products
are promptly destroyed under inspector supervision to prevent their
entrance into the human food chain. The equipment used for handling
condemned-inedible products is used exclusively for that purpose.
Separation from edible food is strict. For example, holding containers
are watertight to avoid contamination of the premises or other products
with diseased material. The condemned or inedible product is kept
under constant inspection supervision from the time it is condemned
until it is properly disposed of. This is accomplished by a
combination of personal supervision by the inspector and the use of
sealed containers, trucks, chutes, and compartments equipped with seals
that cannot be tampered with or removed without detection by the
inspector. The containers are tightly constructed in order to make
diversion of the condemned product unlikely (Libby, 1975).

SUMMARY AND EVALUATION

The federal meat and poultry Inspection laws are quite explicit in
defining adulteration, and in most instances the definition goes well
beyond public health concern. The laws further require that each
food-animal in federal or state establishments receive antemortem and
postmortem inspections. The objective of the former is to determine if
each animal presented for slaughter is normal or abnormal. Under the
Wholesome Poultry Products Act of 1968, the extent of antemortem
inspection of poultry is left to the discretion of the Secretary of
Agriculture, and bird-by-bird antemortem Inspection is not required.

The main purpose of postmortem examination is to detect and
eliminate abnormalities, including contamination, in an attempt to
ensure that only meat and poultry fit for human consumption Is passed
for food.

In light of changes in the disease prevalence in both meat and
poultry, improved animal health husbandry, and financial resource limi-
tations, FSIS has made certain changes in inspection procedures and has
proposed others (see Table 6-1). The agency contends that none of
these changes has reduced the effectiveness of the meat and poultry
inspection program. Although the new procedures may have economic and
aesthetic implications, their public health implications have not been
evaluated directly.

Salmonella , Campylobacter jejuni, Escherlchia coll , Clostridium
perf ringens , and other enteric pathogens are not identified by
antemortem and postmortem inspection and may be conveyed into kitchens
on raw meat and poultry. The number of such organisms that leave
slaughtering establishments can be reduced considerably by improved
dressing procedures to prevent fecal soilage of carcasses and
carcass-to-carcass cross-contamination.

As an example of procedures that lead to carcass contamination, the
committee is concerned about the "hide-on" slaughtering of calves. In
fiscal year 1983, more than 2.7 million calves were slaughtered under
federal inspection. FSIS estimates that 85% to 95% were slaughtered
with the hide-on method. The entire process of slaughter and dressing
is aimed at ensuring, as far as practicable, that the meat remains free
of fecal contamination. In the Federal Republic of Germany, the
practice of leaving calves unskinned was at one time permissible on the
ground that it preserved the natural color of the flesh. Then it was
shown that this was a serious source of bacterial contamination and
that meat color could be maintained with proper refrigeration. Since
1961 the practice has been forbidden in that country (Gracey, 1981).
Hide-on dressing of calves also makes It difficult to observe injection
sites (Booz-Allen, 1977b).

The committee is also concerned about the reason behind several
ante- and postmortem disposition guidelines. For example, there is no

apparent scientific basis for the requirement that animals bitten by a
rabid animal must not be slaughtered for food purposes for at least 8
months (USDA, 1983b). Better guidelines for the handling of if downer ls
animals (those immobilized by illness or injury) are required*
Furthermore, it is not clear to the committee why any livestock showing
signs of the onset of parturition should be withheld from slaughter
until after parturition and passage of the placenta (CFR, 1983a).

FSIS has also had great difficulty persuading the general public (as
well as its inspection staff) that some kind of sampling system, with
substantially more intense inspection of a small number of products,
could in fact lead to better identification of problem areas and hence
improve the public health. This is in contrast to the widespread
belief in the scientific community and endorsed by this
committee that more targeted and more intense study of a sample of
products would have many advantages* The committee specifically
considered whether to recommend a move toward less-than-continuous
postmortem inspection for some aspects of slaughter (especially of
poultry) but concluded that no such change should be recommended until
a detailed risk analysis, based on sound scientific data, compares the
present and proposed approaches and documents that efforts of FSIS to
attain its major public health objectives would not be harmed. If
sampling is justified and implemented, it should be in the context of
the hazard analysis critical control point approach (see Chapter 8).
The committee does not look on sampling primarily as a way to reduce
costs indeed they may increase and it strongly recommends against the
use of sampling simply to reduce the total inspection effort with
today's methods.

RECOMMENDATIONS

* The present reliance on postmortem inspection is insufficient to
guarantee consumer safety from many animal diseases (although they are
of low prevalence), as well as from new hazards associated with drug
and pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacterial species. The
committee notes that the mechanism recommended in Chapter 5 to trace
carcasses from slaughter back to the animals 1 original production unit
would not only result in improved quality meat and poultry but would
also make available for epidemiological analysis valuable data obtained
post mortem.

In light of the continuing transmission of enteric pathogens to
consumers via raw meat and poultry, the committee recommends that newer
technologies (for example, hot water wash and irradiation) and modified
slaughtering and dressing techniques be developed and implemented to
reduce infectious and other hazardous agents in the meat and poultry
products leaving slaughtering facilities. As part of a review and
update of procedures used during slaughter, the committee recommends
that FSIS reassess the "hide-on" slaughter of calves.

The committee recommends that a sample of condemned tissues be
submitted to appropriate pathology, microbiology, and/or toxicology
laboratories to establish baseline data of etiologies associated with
each condemnation category and to provide material for regularly
scheduled gross/histopathology correlation sessions as an integrated
part of their continuing education of in-plant VMOs*

* The committee recommends that FSIS periodically review and update
antemortem and postmortem disposition guidelines and regulations and
that the rationale for such policies be more fully developed and made
public .

REFERENCES

Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. 1977a. Study of the Federal Meat

and Poultry Inspection Program* Vol. 1: Description of the Meat
and Poultry Inspection Program. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.

Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. 1977b. Study of the Federal Meat
and Poultry Inspection System. Vol. 2: Opportunities for
Change An Evaluation of Specific Alternatives. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Brandly, P. J. , G. Migaki, and K. E. Taylor. 1966. Meat Hygiene,
Third edition. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia.

CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). 1983a. Section 309.10, Onset of
parturition. Pg. 132 in Title 9, Animals and Animal Products;
Chapter III, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Meat and Poultry
Inspection, Department of Agriculture; Subchapter A, Mandatory Meat
Inspection; Part 309, Ante-Mortem Inspection. Office of the Federal
Register, Washington, D.C.

CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). 1983b. Section 381.66, Temperatures
and chilling and freezing procedures. Pp. 370-375 in Title 9,
Animals and Animal Products; Chapter III, Food Safety and Inspection
Service, Meat and Poultry Inspection, Department of Agriculture;
Subchapter C, Mandatory Poultry Products Inspection; Part 381,
Poultry Products Inspection Regulations; Subpart I, Operating
Procedures. Office of the Federal Register, Washington, D.C.

Dubbert, W. H. 1984. The new look of meat and poultry inspection.
J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 184:266-271.

Essey, M. A., P. L. Smith, and W. L. Searles. 1983. Retrospective
study of bovine tuberculosis cases found on slaughter surveillance
in the United States with particular reference to feedlot cattle of
Mexican origin. Pp. 596-602 in Proceedings of the Eighty-Seventh
Annual Meeting of the United States Animal Health Association.

Las Vegas, Nevada, October 16-21, 1983* United States Animal Health
Association, Richmond, Virginia*

Gracey, J. F. 1981. Thornton's Meat Hygiene, Seventh edition.
BailliSre Tindall, London .

Hosker, R. L. 1983. Status of the state-federal tuberculosis

eradication program, FY 1983 . Pp. 619-631 in Proceedings of the
Eighty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the United States Animal Health
Association, Las Vegas, Nevada, October 16-21, 1983. United States
Animal Health Association, Richmond, Virginia.

ICMSF (International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for
Foods). 1980. Microbial Ecology of Foods. Volume II. Food
Commodities. Academic Press, New York.

Johnson, B. G. 1983. Status report 1983, Cooperative state-federal
brucellosis eradication program. Pp. 147-161 in Proceedings of the
Eighty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the United States Animal Health
Association, Las Vegas, Nevada, October 16-21, 1983. United States
Animal Health Association, Richmond, Virginia.

Libby, J. A. 1975. Meat Hygiene, Fourth edition. Lea & Febiger,
Philadelphia.

Menning, E. L. 1984a. FSIS Briefing, May 24, 1984. Fed. Vet.
41(7):9-10.

Menning, E. L. 1984b. NAFV/FSIS Consultation, June 19-20, 1984. Fed.
Vet. 41(8) :2-4.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), n.d. Livestock Carcass

Disposition Review. Program Training Division, Meat and Poultry
Inspection Technical Services, Food Safety and Inspection Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1977. Veterinary Meat
Inspection Disposition Guideline, Meat and Poultry Inspection
Program, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1981. A Guide for Accredited
Veterinarians. APHIS 91-18. Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1983a. An Analysis and

Evaluation of the Center for Study of Responsive Law's "Return to
the Jungle." Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1983b. Meat and Poultry

Inspection Manual. Meat and Poultry Inspection Program, Food Safety
and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1984a. Briefing Book.

Prepared for the Committee to Evaluate the Scientific Basis of the
Nation f s Meat and Poultry Inspection Program, Food and Nutrition
Board, National Research Council, February 16, 1984. Food Safety
and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1984b. Proposed rules.

Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 9CFR
Part 381. Fed. Regist. 49:2473-2478.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1984c. Statistical Summary:
Federal Meat and Poultry Inspection for Fiscal Year 1983. FSIS-14.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.

Meat and Poultry Processing
and Inspection

Meat and poultry products are highly perishable. Technological
developments in food processing, preservation, and handling over the
last few decades have provided a much greater variety of meat and
poultry products than were available at the time of the 1906 Federal
Meat Inspection Act (P.L. 59-242). This chapter contains a description
of the broad categories of processed meat and poultry, followed by a
profile and evaluation of the traditional, current, and evolving
inspection strategies of processing operations.

Meat and poultry products are defined as processed if the carcass
identity is lost (e.g., cut or ground meat) or if the product is
subjected to some treatment other than refrigeration (above freezing)
that changes its state, texture, color, or flavor, that prolongs its
shelf life, or that kills pathogens. Products can be classified
according to the processes that they have undergone to influence their
safety, quality, or shelf life (ICMSF, 1980).

Distribution and storage usually require some degree of
preservation. The most important means of preservation are chilling or
freezing, heating, curing, and drying. Chilled meat and poultry can be
held for several days and frozen meat and poultry for several months
without appreciable change in their properties. When subjected to the
other processes cooking, retorting, smoking, drying, curing,
fermenting their characteristic properties change and these products
are clearly different from fresh meat. Unique health hazards and
spoilage concerns are thus associated with the product of each type of
process.

The microorganisms that cause foods to spoil are generally not the
same as those that cause disease. Spoiled foods when eaten seldom
cause serious illness, and many food-borne pathogens (e.g., Salmonella
and Staphylococcus aureus) even when present in large numbers do not
adversely affect food taste or appearance. The committee opted to
include spoilage in its discussion of the effects of processing,
however, because many of today's inspection activities are intended to

Aitc-iii-vA -t-Vi-a-t- />rvr>oiimo-re "hii-iro whnl fvcsruno TYrnHiir1-.cs

The review of microbial hazards and spoilage of processed meat and
poultry products in this chapter is based primarily on publications of
the International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for
Foods (ICMSF, 1980) and the Subcommittee on Microbiological Criteria of
the National Research Council's Committee on Food Protection (NRC,
1985). For a discussion of hazards linked to chemical residues , see
Chapter 4*

PROCESSING'S EFFECTS ON HEALTH RISKS AND SPOILAGE

Effective processing and storage can prevent health risks and
prolong the shelf life of meat and poultry products. Despite the
improvements in these procedures over the past 80 years, meat and
poultry products are sometimes the vehicles of food-borne diseases , as
described in Chapter 3. Outbreaks of food-borne disease or spoilage
may result from raw material contamination, process failure,
contamination after processing, or improper storage.

Despite currently used inspection procedures , processing-related
outbreaks do occur occasionally , as shown in Table 7-1. Salmonellosis
has usually stemmed from inadequate cooking and, most likely,
cross-contamination in plants and further time-temperature abuse by
food-service personnel, caterers, or the public. Improper fermentation
of salami led to outbreaks of staphylococcal food poisoning.
Trichinosis occurred because raw pork products were eaten or because
they were just smoked and not heated to temperatures sufficient to kill
Trichinella spiralis .

The final abuses of meat and poultry products that allowed them to
become vehicles for transmission of pathogens usually occur in
food-service establishments (65%) and homes (31%), but sometimes the
abuse occurs during processing (Bryan, 1980). For example, from 1968
to 1977, at least 20 outbreaks of bacterial food-borne illness were
traced to mishandling or improper processing in meat or poultry
processing plants (Bryan, 1980).

One major factor that might contribute to minimizing such incidents
would be to apply state-of-the-science technology for measuring
time-temperature exposure of foods during processing. This technology
has progressed beyond bayonet-type thermometers and wrist watches.
Temperature could be measured with thermocouples (or other appropriate
temperature-detecting devices) so as to pinpoint the temperature in the
region of the food of concern (e.g., geometric center). Inspectors
could be equipped with hand-held thermocouple digital read-out
indicators or thermocouple data-loggers. Temperature sensors can be
attached to strip-chart recorders or to data-loggers (if computers are
available) so that time-temperature curves for each production lot are
permanently recorded for review by quality control personnel and the
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) inspector. Strip-chart

recorders and data-loggers can be equipped with alarm systems that can
indicate when a specified temperature or duration has not been achieved*

The steps within the different categories of processing that are
associated with health hazards are specific to those operations.
Inspection strategies should match these categories for monitoring to
be effective*

Raw Meat and Poultry; Chilled or Frozen

Raw chilled meat and poultry are commonly kept In chilled rooms ,
refrigerators, or refrigerated transit vans or containers at
temperatures below 50F (10C), preferably near 32F (0C).
These products may be contaminated by Salmonella, Campylobacter jejuni,
Yersinia enterocolitica , Clostridium perfringens, and Staphylococcus
aureus . These organisms can enter kitchens on raw meat and poultry and
can be a source of contamination for cooked products or other foods.
perfringens spores survive cooking, readily germinate after being
heat-activated, and multiply rapidly as the temperature of cooked meat
falls below 122F (50C). In rare occurrences, cases of salmonellosis
have been associated in epidemiological studies with ingestion of raw
ground beef (Bryan, 1980; CDC, 1982; Fontaine et al. , 1978).
Hamburgers sold by a large fast-food chain were the vehicle of
transmission of hemorrhagic Escherichia coli that caused several cases
of severe bloody diarrhea (CDC, 1982; Riley ejt al . , 1983). Trichinella
spiralis may be present in pork, particularly if the hogs have been
illegally fed uncooked garbage .

Processing carcasses into primal, subprimal, and retail cuts of meat
and cutting up poultry carcasses both increases the surface area and
spreads and introduces bacterial contaminants. Additional handling
tends to add new contaminants and spread those already present.

Spoilage of retail cuts is similar to that of carcass meat, but It
may be hastened by extra handling, increased surface-to-volume ratio,
and more diverse temperatures at retail or later. Pseudomonas,
Acinetobacter , and Moraxella dominate the flora of moist meat that has
been exposed to air and cold temperatures. Their multiplication causes
meat and poultry surfaces to become discolored and malodorous, then
slimy. In time, depending largely on both storage temperature and
relative humidity, spoilage results in spite of good sanitation in
plants and storage of the products at low temperatures.

Microbial contamination is likely to be 10 to 100 times greater in
comminuted (ground) meat than in whole cuts of meat. The situation is
similar for mechanically deboned meat and poultry parts that are ground
or crushed and centrifuged or extruded. Subsequent development of
microbial flora depends on whether meat is in oxygen-impermeable or
oxygen-permeable packages and whether the organisms are on surfaces or
in the interior of the product. Surfaces of aerobically stored
comminuted meat are bright red when fresh. When Pseudomonas,
Acinetobacter , and Moraxella multiply, they eventually produce

<L) fN^

Jpj

r^ ^

' OQ

f 1 ^

,J "00

co m o <w co -"101 xTo^

T3
<D

Is"* B i s| Kg-

CO
VO

r^.
c^

CU
CD

Mr-^OJ ~~ ^ ". rH-H.

3 oig s s j j& ,37!

8 888 8 8 S sis

cj*
O

0}
1 1

C X

O J-i

X QJ

P-I

AJ *H O

O O * -H 60

3 O i < AJ AJ {JO

AJ 4J > C S

! -el is a! 2 .5

1 C U C -H co

Q I

O o O, o AJ
M 0> CO X3 to
PU ^ C to OJ

S ' 3 3 rH M
U fc H T3 *H CU 60

X) co AJ o AJ E O
CO X ct) ,4 co CO J-i

M r- 1 4J

rJ QJ c a c co a

. C 60

>> "J J

CO 1 AJ H

-o E co

Ly Processed ft

Contributory
Factors 3

^ CD CO O !. , ,

"^CAJ^oi 'nctJ,

si -" :i s-.^ u-s

>CU OOJ^i AJAJ m '"HXlAJJ^OAJ

w " u " ao~ .2C "Soj,.- "g.^SU

-S^ US-3 |j"g ^ S Is^Jlsiigl
iJS i2^ ll-S |t ^|S.^ e :-5|

QJJ-< QJCUC? M E g c^SS^SP ^^"
Jco J O.T3 v-'CJC CxS CCWJ-'QJCOSCIJ-H
w M 'HAJa,ftO-HUiAJCOr-<

rH
CO

E -J

3 rH

~* "* ^ 2 -

2; M

CN ^ Qo

4J
H

0)
J-i
CO

S K S K 2 Sg S^

2 22222 SS;

i 1 ,4

CO <*">

^ s

QJ QJ
JJ .^ jj

CO '""

w CX M

^ 1

r-l

S f^

H fU

| - S

j_i O>
4J

O w

0)
4J

Connnerc
Processi
Product

^ S .2 g. .2 ff 1
S 15 a * | 1 8

i S * 1 2 1 1 I

. co

/~s

I co

!~ . .3 g

AJ
CO CO
co E
QJ 3 co
CO fO -H
CO O C
CD cc

HE ^ w i w co a.

B 3 o 5 3

COVl-r-l ^ '-1 r-l CD x-\ rt
H AJ rH X: CO ^ OJ C AJl -H
rHC03 M-H(1> COV-ICTJ

SOAJ ^ 4 - | x:'->.oEo co

<3 C W TJ 60

AJrHjO Q" 1 ^ ^!^^^

O O
Q Q
O O

O
Q
O

M-l CU
O J->

W
W> 3 60 V-.
C CT c O

i "O

> C

J* C <L)
O O CO
O Cb 0)

CO CO N T3

O 4J H O

0) W CU VJ

pi v-' co a,

O H CX - M

O E O C CD

O CO r4 O O,

CU C E JJ CD

CO !-4 4J 4-J

0) 4-1 40 CO

I CU

H a. 4j

E O C co

CO V4 O

4J CL -H o

C E JJ O
O ' '

!-l U

31 a) 4J CO

cr co C 00 ca l-<

a) co O -H a)

T3 O -H >-i TJ CU

CO r-l 4J U-( O E

C O CTJ 0) O <U

M v-/ (3 V^ M-( 4J

O -H

o 6

O CO

rH CO

^J I

0) CU

a * AJ
o c

r4 O E

31 > CU JJ TZ *H

cr co c! oo <o o <

d) co O *i-l O Xi

T3 O H M ?D "4-J CO

cu cy

K 0)

PH JO

.100

M
O
4-1

3
-0 CO

-a

a <u

O H
-H CO

f-l fl

o o

4-1 vH

CO 4J rH

U CO H

O rH CO

-O O CJ

CO CO 0)

Q
O

>-j a to
o o a 3

-U -H -H 0)

O CD
*O 4J

CD <4H
I T3 O C0|

O H

o e

O CO

D
00

a-i,

cu a

4J O

co o

3 I

cy co

.-v OJ ,

o o i

H M n

M CXr

4J CU

M CO

<1J -H

1 S

O CO

-M CD

CU d

4J O

S ? - 5

cr co a cx

CD co o o

TJ O tH JH

60 S

a o

-H O

3 >

CO CD
IH CO
CD I ,
CXT3

e o

-H ja

CD 4J t>0

rH H CD fl

43 CO 4J iH

H CO Ma

CO 73 3 O

CO 4H d TJ ^H

O O CO 4J

fX CD CO

O) 4-1 M 4J

^! w a 3 a

M 3 CD 4J CD

O O

a M C
o cu cu
a cx m

T3
CU

CD CU

<D 3

co co

cO O

CO n-l

CO
O

r-l

CJ U-l

CD CD

U CD

co|

CD 3

8.3

. -s

a u-<

CD CD

jh CD

CM ,0

a in

CU CO
O co

CJ *H

o a o

o o o

CJ CO O

O -H rH

H O >>^

>> fXj3 i

rd a :

101

Q
CJ

co O

c -<

O JJ

L: rl CO

H O

4J JJ CO O

O CO C CD

CD Li -H H

a o

CO X3 CO O

C CO X C

Q, Li

s QJ

co cu

-J CO

3 3

O X)

OB
JJ C

CO -H

0) -H

a w
cO co
C 0)

o a;
6 co
co cO

E .

CO Li

CO *lH

CO U-|

j= O

6 w

O C

W S

O O 0) T) W
CO L, g C
4-4 cx cO cfl

C>0

(U T3 -r^ *H ~

JJ OJ > JJ

<0 JJ cfl C C

o co jn LI co

HO 0) r-4

-O H CO JJ O-

Cu cfl
E <l>

CX, gj

vw rO <U O

co u-i jj 60 O

0) O 3 CO r-l

O J2

~ OJ CU 6

C O QJ O

OJ Li <u OJ JJ

Li 3 "

CO O ,

i rn f -\

sliminess. In the interior, which is anaerobic unless loosely packed,
lactic acid bacteria develop and cause souring. In oxygen-impermeable
packaged meat, bacterial counts (mostly lactic acid bacteria) can become
very high without obvious spoilage.

The pathogens of frozen raw meat are the same as those of the meat
and poultry before freezing, but their numbers may be changed. Freezing
kills parasites and some bacteria, but frozen meat is not likely to be
free of pathogenic bacteria. Salmonella, for example, is frequently
isolated from frozen meat and poultry. Bacterial spores and
Staphylococcus aureus vegetative cells survive freezing and frozen
storage quite well. Time-temperature abuse after thawing can encourage
microbial multiplication. Cross-contamination from thawed products and
from thaw water cause the same concerns as do raw chilled meat and
poultry.

Bacterial spoilage does not occur in properly frozen and stored meat.
Storage temperatures as low as 14F (-10C), however, permit slow
development of molds that form spots on surfaces. Spoilage that usually
occurs after thawing is the same as that in raw chilled meat. Surfaces
become slimy under aerobic conditions and souring occurs under anaerobic
conditions. Oxidation continues during frozen storage and results in
deterioration of quality.

Cured Meat and Poultry

Meat and poultry are cured by the addition and penetration of
solutions containing sodium chloride, nitrites, or nitrates. This
treatment imparts color, flavor, antioxidant properties, and microbial
stability. Depending on salt concentrations, the length of the cure,
and subsequent drying, the moisture level of the product as measured by
its water activity (a w ) varies. (Water activity is the ratio of the
water pressure of a food to that of pure water at the same temperature.
It is a measure of the water in a food available for use by
microorganisms that have specific cardinal requirements for a w ^ hence
their growth in a food and the spoilage of that food is a condition of
the a w . )

Products are classified as having a w values either above or below
0.92. The pathogens of most concern in high-a w cured meats (e.g.,
bacon, raw ham, or unfermented sausage) are Salmonella, S t aphy 1 o c o c c u s
aureus, and Clostridium botulinum either if insufficient concentrations
of salt, nitrite, or nitrate are added or if cold storage is
inadequate. Hams, after packages are opened, are commonly contaminated
with J3. aureus during slicing or other handling. If such ham is not
properly chilled, S>. aureus multiply and produce enterotoxin.
Improperly home-cured hams have been implicated in outbreaks of botulism
in France (Sebald and Jouglard, 1977). Rapidly cured, brine-injected
bacon and ham, which are often sliced and vacuum-packed, require
refrigerated storage* Gradually, surfaces become slimy, and flowery or
acidic odors develop. Spoilage of vacuum-packed bacon is ultimately

caused by lactobacilli, but yeast may develop if acidity is low (i.e.,
if pH is higher). During drying, surface molds develop naturally.
These are removed by washing and soaking prior to cooking. Salted
sausage is susceptible to oxidative rancidity, but this is retarded by
the antioxidant effect of nitrite in the cure.

Smoked Meat and Poultry

The primary function of smoking after curing is to provide flavor,
not to preserve. Smoking (and accompanying cooking), depending on time
and temperature exposure, will either kill or allow survival of
microorganisms that do not form spores. Cold smoking, however, permits
survival of most microorganisms. During smoking and accompanying or
subsequent heating, the surface dries, thus reducing the water activity
and concentrating salts. Wood smoking deposits phenolic and acidic
compounds on surfaces, which lowers pH. Spoilage is usually caused by
molds .

Fermented Sausage

Fermented sausages undergo a cure/fermentation process for a period
of hours to days at temperatures ranging from 50 to 86 F (10 to
30C), depending on the product. Fermented sausage having a low a^
can pose a risk due to the enterotoxin of S_. aureus , particularly if it
is made rapidly by fermentation at relatively high temperatures when the
mix has a high a w but before the product has been fermented and
dried. Several outbreaks of food-borne illnesses have resulted from
poorly processed Italian or Genoa salami (Barber and Diebel, 1972; CDC,
1975a, 1979).

Molds cause most of the spoilage of fermented sausage because they
can grow in products having low water activity. Mycotoxins have been
found on their surfaces (Frank, 1972), but apparently these toxins do
not penetrate far below the surface. Enyzmes produced during
multiplication of lactobacilli can result in a sharp off-odor and a
bitter, cheesy flavor in sausage.

Dried Meat and Poultry

Commercial drying of meat, blood, and gelatin is usually done in
hot-air tunnels or freeze driers, but some drying is done in the open
air. Salmonellae, other Enterobacteriaceae , and clostridia are likely
to be associated with meat, and staphylococci, Bacillus cereus, and JC.
perfringens may be introduced, if not already present, during the
preparation and drying of these products. It is therefore essential
that the drying rapidly decrease the a w of these products to levels at
which pathogens do not multiply. If these pathogens survive the
processing, they can survive in the dried product for a long time.
Multiplication of these bacteria in a dried product will be inhibited as
long as the product is kept dry, but bacterial growth will then begin
after the product is rehydrated and left unrefrigerated for 4 or more

hours. Spores, such as those of . perfringens and B_. cereus , can
survive cooking (e.g., boiling for a few hours), freezing, and drying,
and resulting vegetative cells can multiply when reconstituted products
are improperly stored. Other pathogens, of course, can enter the
product during or after reconstitution and subsequently multiply.

Properly dried meat is microbiologically stable, unless there is a
relatively large uptake of moisture from exposure to moist conditions.
When spoilage does occur, molds are the primary causes, and musty odors,
of f -flavors , and discoloration are the result. After rehydration,
microbial growth is similar to that of the product before drying.

Rendered Meat and Fat

Rendering of meat trimmings and fat at low temperatures, i.e.,
approximately 120F (49C) or slightly lower, permits survival of .
perfringens and may not always kill vegetative forms of bacteria such as
S' a ureus an <l Salmonella. The conditions are anaerobic and ideal for
the multiplication of . perfringens , which can multiply at temperatures
up to 122F (50C). This product is likely to be contaminated with a
large number of bacteria. Spoilage is likely to be caused by anaerobes,
including . perfringens.

Dead and diseased animals, meat scraps, bone, feathers, blood, and
viscera are rendered at high temperatures, between 239 and 270F (115
and 150C), to produce inedible fat and meals. Pathogens will be
killed by this treatment, but the rendered product often becomes
recontaminated in the rendering environment or sometimes during
transit. Rendered meat, bone, blood, and leather by-products frequently
harbor salmonellae.

Pasteurized Meat and Poultry

Uncured meat and poultry are often pasteurized that is, cooked to
internal temperatures of 130 to 167F (54 to 75C) for
sufficient time to kill or inactivate most yeast, molds, parasites,
viruses, and non-spore-forming bacteria. . perfringens is the pathogen
of most concern in pasteurized or otherwise low-heat processed meats and
poultry. Cooking kills competitive organisms but allows heat-resistant
* perfringens spores to survive; it drives off oxygen, thus lowering
the redox potential of the meat and skin; and it heat-activates spores,
causing them to germinate when temperatures become favorable. Holding
the cooked products for several hours within a temperature range optimal
for multiplication of pathogenic bacteria permits their multiplication
to numbers that could produce illness.

Salmonella are inactivated by proper heat processing (Bryan, 1980;
Goodfellow and Brown, 1978), but cross-contamination readily occurs
after heating when other products are packaged or repackaged by or on
the same equipment, by the same persons, or in the same environment.
Several outbreaks of salmonellosis have resulted from either

inadequately heat-processed or recontaminated "roast" beef (Bryan,
1980). Turkey rolls have also been a vehicle of salmonellosis outbreaks
(Bryan eit al . , 1968).

When meat and poultry products are pasteurized after packaging,
spoilage depends on the surviving flora and the product temperature
during storage. Micrococci, streptococci, and lactobacilli are
frequently involved. Recontamination occurs if the pasteurized product
is repackaged or sliced. In such cases, spoilage may occur within a
week and may be caused by a great variety of bacteria, yeast, or molds
because cooked meat and poultry are excellent media for their growth.
Thus, spoilage may be either souring proteolysis with repugnant odor or
putrefaction with gas.

Cured meats (e.g., ham, wieners, bologna) are heated to internal
temperatures of 137 to 167F (58 to 75C) to be pasteurized.
' _auy eu g. causes most concern in such cases. It rarely survives the
heat process, but it is introduced by workers who handle and package
these products. Once a food is contaminated, staphylococci can be
readily disseminated by slicing machines and other equipment. The a w
and nitrite concentration in pasteurized, cured meats do not prevent the
multiplication of S_. aureus . Spores of Bacillus spp. and Clostridium
spp. survive pasteurization. Salmonella and JC. botulinuni have not been
a significant problem, probably because of the combined effect of salt,
nitrite, and cold storage.

If pasteurized, cured meat and poultry products are stored in
refrigerators, bacterial counts may not substantially change for
months. Eventually, however, lactic acid bacteria and enterococci that
have survived the heat process multiply and cause changes in flavor and
odor. Products may become either putrid or acidic and sticky, depending
on the concentration of fermentable carbohydrates. In
oxygen-impermeable plastic pouches, lactic acid bacteria in some cases
multiply despite the addition of salt and nitrite, and carbon dioxide
may be formed and swell the package. The shelf life of pasteurized,
cured products that are sold unpackaged or in oxygen-permeable films is
only slightly longer than that of fresh meat (ICMSF, 1980).
Psychrotrophic bacteria may cause slime formation, and molds may grow.
Catalase-negative bacteria may produce hydrogen peroxide that causes
either brown or green discoloration.

Low-Acid Canned Meat and Poultry

Uncured meat and poultry products (pH greater than 4.6) that are
packed in tins or aluminum cans, glass jars, metal foils, or strong
plastic containers are given a time-temperature exposure that will kill
up to 10^2 c. botulinum spores. On rare occasions, improper
heat-processing or contamination during cooling has led to outbreaks of
botulism (DHEW, 1979; Meyer and Eddie, 1965). Spores of such pathogens
as * perfringens and IS. cereus are also killed by this "botulism
cook. 11 Salmonella and S. aureus only become problems if they gain

entrance through a seam or pin hole during handling or in cooling water
after retorting.

Canned, uncured meat and poultry products may contain microorganisms
from one of three sources: growth of bacteria before heat processing,
survival of heat-resistant spores, and post-process penetration into
cans. Some mesophilic spores (e.g., Clostridium sporogenes and
putrefactive anaerobes) have greater heat resistance than does C_.
botulinum; surviving spores germinate and may cause cans to swell.
Microorganisms from workers, equipment, or cooling water can enter cans
through pin holes, faulty seams, or the mastic that seals ends to the
can body. A variety of spoilage forms follows, depending on the type of
contaminant.

Hermetically Sealed, Shelf-Stable, Cured Meat and Poultry

Hermetically sealed, shelf-stable, cured products are subjected to
temperatures much lower than those required for a botulism cook. These
products, however, are shelf-stable under normal distribution and
storage conditions in temperate climates because of a combination of
heat treatment, salt and nitrite concentrations, and storage
temperature. _C. botulinum spores can survive in hermetically sealed,
shelf-stable, cured meat and poultry, but proper nitrite concentrations
prevent outgrowth of spores.

Spoilage may be caused by a large quantity of mesophilic anaerobic
spores, inadequate heat processing, a low concentration of curing salts,
or a combination of these factors. As with any retorted product,
spoilage can take place before canning, the process can fail, or
contaminants can enter faulty cans after processing. If concentrations
of curing salts are too low, and if pH and storage temperatures are
favorable, . sporogenes and other putrefactive anaerobes can germinate
and multiply, producing gas that can make the can swell and sometimes
turn the contents into liquid.

Fully Sterilized Cured Meat and Poultry

Fully sterilized cured meats are given a heat process higher than
that required for the botulism cook so that putrefactive anaerobes and
thermophilic spores are inactivated. These products would not spoil or
become a health hazard unless post-retort contamination occurred,
because the high-heat treatment either kills or injures heat-resistant
spores, rendering them more sensitive to sodium chloride. These
products are stable even when stored under tropical conditions.

Radicidized (Irradiation Pasteurized) Meat and Poultry

Doses of approximately 2.5 kilo Gray (kGy) in fresh meat and poultry
and approximately 5 kGy in dried or frozen meat kill

Irradiation is usually applied to packaged products and the products do
not increase in temperature during treatment, so immersion in cooling

water is not necessary; there is little opportunity, therefore, for
recontamination. This procedure could eliminate Salmonella from
packaged raw meat and poultry and Trichinella spiralis from pork, but it
is not yet an approved method of preservation in the United States for
these products. C. gerfringens would remain a concern, however, because
the spores are not killed by this level of irradiation.

There are several causes of spoilage. Moraxella is a common cause of
spoilage of irradiated meat and poultry stored at refrigeration
temperatures. Enterococci may survive irradiation and be present in
large numbers at the time of spoilage. Lactic acid bacteria cause
spoilage in packages in which the atmosphere is anaerobic.

Radappertized (Commercially Sterilized) Meat and Poultry

Clostridium botulinum spores are highly resistant to radiation so
either high-dose irradiation or lesser doses coupled with acidification
or curing salts must be used to provide safety and shelf stability. A
dose of 45 kGy for products that have not been acidified or cured is
needed to provide a treatment that will kill up to 10 12 _C. botulinum
spores.

INSPECTION RESPONSIBILITIES AND STRATEGIES

In the early days of meat inspection in the United States the primary
concern was to keep meat from diseased animals out of food channels and
to ensure that slaughter and meat processing operations were done under
sanitary conditions (see Chapter 2). These objectives required
continuous inspection at slaughter. Since World War II, increasing
proportions of the meat supply have gone into processed products, and a
significant portion of federal inspection has thus been devoted to
processing. FSIS was required, therefore, to increase its degree of
surveillance over a growing and increasingly complex system; budget
restrictions, however, have not permitted commensurate growth in
inspection activities. The expansion of responsibilities has been
accommodated by increased efficiency, use of new methods, curtailment of
unproductive inspection steps, and other measures.

All three of the broad inspection strategies discussed here (see
Table 7-2) the traditional approach, voluntary total quality control,
and compliance-based inspection are intended to ensure that

sanitation is adequate;

approved formulations are followed;

only wholesome ingredients are used;

products are not adultered; and

products are truthfully labeled.

4-J

H lu CX

4J CO

4J O

cu
ex co

O 4-J

0) rH .

CO CO

rH O

CD MH 00

}-i C

CO CO

>> C 3 CO

a 4-i

X-H

C 0)

}-l -H O -

4-1 -H

CU "O

CO r^ CO

H M

CO E CX C

C C

CO -

V-J CU

H Cfl CO

4- i-l CU

C cfl UH

co 00

CO O

T3 CO CD

-a c

cu cu * E

rH O

CO O

cu o

r-J 4J 4-J A

T3 CX

4-J

-H

CO r-4

<C CD O

CO O

O CO CO CO

CU >>

4-J

4J CX

Q O r-l

cu -a cu -H

CO 4H 4_i

CO CD CX

& JZ

CO E rH

CO O ->-H .

CU CU

CU 00

3 C

1 4-)

J3 CO rH E

E C

<u co

(U .u C cc

>% C -H QJ

CU -H

<D CO M

O ON

OJ O O JO 4J

r-l CO

> -H CU

4-> > CO

JD C -H CO CO

4-1 r-4

H CO

iH >

c6 C

4J C CD

CU 4-J -H >,

'H -a

c o

3 CU

00 4-J CU

H >H

CO -H O

T) 3 CO rH CO

rH C

o -u

cr o

> M -H 00

rH CT M 0)

CX CO

4_J

O co

CD O

nO 4-j

i"'S

00 j -H

3 CU CU r4 Ci

O ^ CX C

"0 O

3 cu co co

4J CD CO

> U-i O T3 -H

O CO

rH ,0

O J3 -H -H

TJ 3 CX CO

C M

3 co

O V4

5 4-J > CO

rH CO CO CU

C TD 00 CO O

MH C

O rH

H O

CD CO

3 CO

C C 4-J

o cu

4_) 4-1

rH J O X)

r-i

o cu -H o

J-l

CO -r-l

CO ^ 4J

M-l 4-J

5 J-l i-l

4J CO O C

> cu

J-l

co O

4J C

co >

3 <4H CX

ccj CU co CO O

r-l i-l

H O

O CD r-l rH

rH -iH

rH 4-J O

C r-l <L> 3 E

O -H

V-t

C E

CX T3 O -H

CO CU

Cd rH 00

H 3 O CJ 1

4-J 3

J-4

O -iH 4J CO

CO r-l

CO 3 CD 00

E 4-J O CU 4-J

co cr

o o

r4 T3

a c

o o cu cu

CU'H }-l

CD C CX cfl 3

,C i-<

CD 3
CX "O

4_>

CX CD CU
TD CX CO

o o

JH 6QT3

CO O

CU CO

S_i

(-1 -r-l

J-i 00 CU C

C >-i

5 "S

JC O C C

PL,

CX u

(X <C 10 CO

rH CU

4-J Ctj

EH 4-J -H O

^ ^

-a

cu o o

C rH

JS CU CU

co O

4- J2. CO rH

1 4J O

O co jD

4-J

CO 4-1

cc -i

C O CO

CU C

H, O rH 4-J

u-t

1 1

CX 4-J C

4j ex

CO O

CO CU CU

rH no

Cfl a) O

rQ C

CO J-< CD

,C CO

CO co

X cfl C

r-l

V-i

O X 'H

O 3

CO CO

O rH

H >H A

-J

CU C

VJ C

O CO

O CO 4J 'H

4-1 -H

co cfl

UH o

cu EC

C 4-1

r-l

CO CO

J-J

tO 4J

co co O

CO 4J O r- '

i 1 O

r-l

-a c

C co CX 3

CX-H

CO M

O M CO

H >, CO

CO CU

JC <U CD

CO rH CU

5-j

CU *H

rC ,-<*

4-J 4J CU

4J O li

X O

CX 4_J

CU 4J O

o -a h

i-C

4-J CU

,_J

E co o

rH C 4-J X)

rH CX

C O 3

C 3

V-i

"> CO
CO

o c

CO C c

CO X O O

co co

E co

ex o

O O H

pC rH JJ

4-1

CO CU

14-1

fc-"< l~<

H > -H

4J ^ rH

cfl

00 O

>, C

C CO O O "O

J-i T3 O O

O CO

J-< 0)

O "H .H 3 -H

CU > S-i 'H M

3 4J

J-t Cu

CO >

f-l 4J 4J TJ ^

JT 4J O 4-> 4-J

T3 C

CX CX

4-J

4-1 CU

4J co cj O O

4-J CO *H C

O ctj

CD co xi a ex

v-4 ex co o o

CX CX

O CO

4_>

fX CO

<L)

H
60

4-1

X J-i

cu cu

y 1

co jr

Cfl 4J

H 4J

O ^M

CO CO

CO rH

CD CU

O C co

CO C

C co

3 co "H

cu 4j co o

4-J

O 3

"O ^ 4-J C

O CU 4J

H CO

2 a! 2

}-< CO rH

CX X CU CO

CX CO -H CU

O CO

CU *

CX 4J

cu co C

c c

ex 4J

-o o c

CO O

C cu

ox cu

O 3 jCi O
4J CO

H *H
rH 4J

H 4J

CO CQ 4J TJ

H 4J Q>

O V-i O CU

E^rH

rH T3

C! *H CU -<

H C 4J 60

3 CX 1

O 60

O C

- 14 " 1 2 "2 -S

cT cu o p

H CO

U CU ' iH

"0 4J *H CO

4-)

O 4J 4J 3 CU

CO 4J p

r***

H X

ctj CO ' O CT 1 C

> N O

c "c

T3 O *

H 3 3 CU 'i-4

CO ^*5 CO 3 CU

M cu

H
4J

-H

s s

C 1 S 1

*s ^ J 1 *

M g

CQ co

u cu o a. cu

JD O 4J O. rH

X> rH

<c ^

H PU

rrl

109

Inspectors have the authority to prevent adulterated products from
entering commerce and to condemn any such products they discover at a
processing facility.

Trad i t iona 1 Ins pe c t ion

FSIS inspectors using a traditional inspection approach evaluate
compliance with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) meat and poultry
regulations mainly by observing both the construction of plant and
equipment and operations within the plant. The various responsibilities
of the meat and poultry inspection program, as summarized by the Council
for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST, 1980), are:

approval of all building plans and equipment used in the
slaughter and processing of meat animals;

anteslaughter examination of animals for health-related problems;

carcass inspection for indications of health-related problems;

sanitation inspection of equipment, buildings, grounds, and
handling of meat products at all stages of processing;

reinspection of all processed meat products to ensure that only
approved items and procedures are used;

quality inspection to ensure that only the appropriate amounts
of moisture, fat, binders, etc., are incorporated into
processed and cured meat items ;

destruction of condemned or unwholesome products to ensure that
these items do not enter human food channels;

examination of all ingredients used in meat items for
appropriateness and wholesomeness ;

specification and application of identity (name of product)
standards for inspected food products;

approval and inspection of all labels to ensure informative and
accurate labeling ;

inspection of foreign meat products that are imported into the
United States;

certification of domestic meat and meat food products for sale
in foreign commerce;

monitoring of meat items for drug, pesticide, and chemical
residues;

o assurance that all pork used in processed products that may be
eaten without adequate cooking is properly treated to destroy
trichinae; and

identification of causes of meat-borne hazards through
epidemiology.

Labeling is an important part of inspection and is used as an
enforcement tool. Inspectors' responsibilities regarding labeling
(Libby, 1975; USDA, 1981) are to ensure that the principal display panel
of a product contains the five essential features USDA requires:

Name of Product. Each name represents a product for which there
Ts a standard of composition. The standard may be established by
regulation, or it may be developed by study of consumer
expectations about a particular product.

Ingredient Statement. The various ingredients in their order of
predominance must be listed for products having more than one
component.

Identity of the Manufacturer. The name, address, and ZIP code of
either the manufacturer or the distributor must appear on the
label.

* Net Weight (Quantity of Contents) .

* Inspection Legend.

In some cases, additional qualifying phrases and warning statements
(such as "keep refrigerated" or "keep frozen") are necessary.

Labels are not required to provide information on how to handle the
products, although many companies give instructions for thawing and
cooking. Most outbreaks of food-borne diseases are related to
mishandling after cooking, as noted earlier, and labels, stickers, or
leaflets could be used to provide consumers with information to reduce
this problem.

To meet their obligations, inspectors may make random checks of
formulation and product weights and measurements of time-temperature
exposures. They may also collect samples to be tested for fat water
restricted ingredients (such as nitrites, phosphates, cereal, and nonfat
dry milk), drugs, pesticides, or chemical residues. And they supervise
the disposal of inedible meats.

To enforce these regulations, USDA's inspectors visit each meat and
,if TO processing plant at least an hour each day; larger operations

that oas* inf X T US Surveillance b y at ^ast one inspector. Products
that pass inspection carry the USDA mark, which implies that they are
wholesome, neither adulterated nor misbranded, but not necessarily free

of pathogens. When violations are detected, inspectors may tag the
product (which necessitates correction and reinspection, causing
slowdowns), talk with plant managers about the problem, report the
situation to supervisors, or make out a schedule for compliance. Much
of the success of the FSIS inspection program to date and much of the
faith of the American public and purchasers abroad that meat and poultry
are wholesome are due to these efforts of the inspectors and the FSIS.

Unfortunately, some items in the regulations are vague (e.g.,
"adequate, 81 "satisfactory, 11 "unsanitary," "clean," and "unwholesome").
This lack of specificity sometimes causes confusion about the relative
importance of each requirement and leaves many important matters to the
discretion of inspectors and their supervisors. Lack of discrimination
between important and relatively unimportant requirements may result in
overemphasis on unnecessary and relatively minor requirements, whereas
operations critical to the safety of a product may be overlooked or
underestimated.

Review and evaluation staff of FSIS oversee the work of inspectors by
conducting onsite assessment of meat and poultry processing operations.
Deficiencies associated with 10 "critical" control points specified by
FSIS are used to monitor inspection control effectiveness. These are:

facilities, equipment, water supply, and sewage disposal;

sanitation of facilities and equipment, and personal hygiene;
antemortem, postmortem, and dressing procedures;

edible product handling procedures;

total and partial quality control, acceptable quality level,
and net weight programs;

pest control, including rodenticides and insecticides;

control of inedible and condemned material;

control of product ingredients, formulation procedures, and
labeling;

control of retained, returned, and restricted products; and

nonfood chemicals.

These inspection points relate to duties and responsibilities of
inspectors to enforce 22 general items and 23 specific processing items,
some of which do not have an impact on public health. Many of the
"critical" control points currently used by FSIS are definitely control
points in reference to aesthetic matters and compliance with existing
regulations. But all of them cannot be considered critical to food

safety or public health (as delineated in Chapter 8). The committee
notes that the word "critical" as used by FSIS needs to be ^ reassessed
and to be reserved for truly critical public health operations.

The traditional inspection approach is quite expensive. Despite
continuous inspection since meat plants started operations, violations
of regulations are encountered, as indicated by circuit ^ staff reviews.
Furthermore, outbreaks of meat-borne and poultry-borne illnesses
occasionally result from processed meat and poultry products. In
addition, the current approach is negative in that most of ^ the
communication with management is fault-finding; a more positive approach
would identify possible problem areas before processing operations are
affected.

Factors that have contributed to current problems of the traditional
inspection approach were summarized in a Booz-Allen report (1977) as
uncontrolled program growth and work load due to continuing state
designations; lack of appropriate, accessible, and detailed information
on the current system that can be integrated into budgeting, resource
allocation, and other management processes to support management
decision making and evaluation; and an inability to change with changing
technologies, due largely to constraints imposed by existing regulations.

Industry Quality Control /Quality Assurance Approaches

Some meat and poultry further-processing plant managers have
organized quality control/quality assurance programs. The general
objectives are to meet specifications of buyers, decrease economic
losses, and create or maintain product integrity and company reputation,
which includes maintaining product standards and ensuring products have
a reasonable shelf life* To attain these objectives, companies may set
purchase specifications for ingredients, establish guidelines for
various steps (control points) in the operation, establish their own
critical control points, train staff, and test finished products. If
ingredients, processing steps, or finished products do not match those
specified in the guidelines, the management decides whether to
distribute the product and accept any consequences, discard the product,
reprocess the product, or modify subsequent processing steps, label inp,
or distribution.

Quality control by the industry merits praise and should be
encouraged. Some of these voluntary standards exceed USDA regulations,
especially with respect to microbiological hazards and critical control
?Slf S ; ff^V 11 ^ baSlS f itS Site Visits and d "c^ssions with
!lwLf c TV 5 nt8 i ^ cotnmitt:ee noted that these efforts are not
always complete. Some plants seem to use USDA inspectors as their
quality control program and do not take major responsibility in this
area. Others try but their programs are poorly conceived or poorly
managed the committee observed. Therefore, some sort of official
surveillance of products, processes, or plant seems necessary!

FSIS Total Quality Control Program

To help meet the increasing demands for continuous surveillance of
meat and poultry processing operations yet remain within available
resources, the FSIS has adopted a system of "continuous supervision" as
well as "continuous inspection" (Angelotti, 1978). In this regard,
Booz-Allen (1977) recommended that industry be made responsible for
quality control of processing plant inspections, with the role of USDA
being limited to monitoring and approval.

After a gradual phase-in, USDA recommended that this total quality
control program (TQC) become mandatory, but because of legislative
restrictions it was initiated as a voluntary system (CFR, 1980a,b; for
further details, see Appendix B). Processing plant managers could ask
for TQC inspection if they believed the system would be useful in their
operations. Currently, many processing plants are not ready to change
over to TQC because of lack of trained personnel to implement and comply
with the program and the lack of management-perceived incentives to do
so.

The proposed system places on the industry the burden of proof of
compliance with federal laws and regulations. It is industry's
responsibility to provide acceptable evidence of compliance to FSIS
inspectors for monitoring and verification.

Such a system, in essence, suggests that industry quality control
programs are the only acceptable means of providing this evidence under
existing technology. This system would have four mandatory quality
control programs: monitoring of microorganisms, fat and added water, net
weights, and in-process temperature controls. All phases of the
production cycle would be covered by these four programs, including
incoming products, process controls, and outgoing products.

This monitoring system would be accompanied by frequent
verification samples taken by FSIS inspectors, as well as by annual
compliance ratings. Plants chronically not in compliance would meet
with economic penalties that would levy a progressively greater burden
on them.

The proposal for TQC recognized that small-plant operators lack both
the expertise in quality control and the capital necessary to develop
such programs and that these plants should continue to be inspected by
traditional techniques. By using TQC where possible, FSIS can better
utilize data to make less subjective judgments that can be supported and
related to a progressive enforcement system. In addition, the proposal
stated, FSIS will be better able to adhere to personnel ceilings while
meeting its legislative mandates.

TQC is a major change in direction for the inspection of processed
products. FSIS has therefore prepared manuals and visual aids that

provide guidance in developing quality control programs. Examples
include a slide presentation "Total Quality Control Inspection, What

" 1

Means for You and for the Processor" (USDA, 1984c), a

Guidebook (USDA, 1984b), and a Chemi stry Qua 1 ity_ Assurance^ JjaruHjook

(USDA, 1982, 1983).

To satisfy USDA inspection requirements, processors must submit in
writing their plans regarding 12 features of a TQC system (USDA, 1980):

A plant profile must be developed that should include, though
not be limited to, slaughter or processing operations, use of outside
contractors for specific operational functions, plant laboratory
capabilities, waste disposal, clean-in-place systems, continuous
processing systems, product liability prevention, use of consultants or
outside laboratories, water potability certificate, sources of meat or
poultry, suppliers, and recall procedures.

e A list of plant management personnel from the corporate head to
persons responsible for making quality control checks 'is needed, as is
a flow chart showing lines of authority among plant officials. This
chart must indicate adequate safeguards to ensure that quality control
personnel can take action whenever a product is not in compliance with
USDA inspection requirements.

A list of raw materials, packaging materials, and nonfood supplies
received by the plant or produced by the slaughter area of the plant
should be submitted.

A list of products produced in the plant must be categorized into
classes^that need specific controls to meet federal meat and poultry
inspection regulations.

By evaluating the raw materials and processed products used in the
plant, a list of the meat and poultry regulations that are applicable to
the plant s inspection should be developed.

Hazards and control points of the processing of each product munt
be identified.

Adequate records (such as receiving logs, product temperature
records, formulation and processing procedure, mean-range quality
control chart or similar quality control charts) are essential' to the
system s ability to provide necessary controls.

A policy toward handling inedible materials must be in place

115

sanitation include records on plant maintenance, environmental control
and maintenance of environmental equipment, pest control, water supply,
chemicals used for sanitation, product contamination control, cleaning
instructions, personal hygiene, and daily inspections.

Corrective action with an emphasis on long-range prevention should
be recorded and made a matter of record.

Statistical procedures should enable an examination at critical
control points so that the process can be adjusted as it drifts toward
undesirable features. The information provided will also be useful in
making decisions concerning the "fitness for use."

The plant's processing procedures from receiving raw materials to
the finished product should be diagrammed.

In addition to a written plan, each company must submit a letter
stating its reasons for seeking total quality control approval (USDA,
1984c). The plant must also indicate that it is willing to adhere to
the requirements of the system after it has been approved, that all
monitoring data will be available to representatives of USDA, that plant
quality control personnel have authority to stop production or shipment
of product when the need arises, and that plant officials will be
available for consultation with representatives of USDA when necessary.
If the total quality control application is approved, USDA guarantees
production of products that are acceptable under USDA requirements for
wholesomeness and labeling accuracy.

After a plant TQC program is approved, the USDA quality control
inspector follows a prepared set of guidelines. This includes a plan of
inspection and an inspection schedule. The plan is based on the plant f s
quality control plan that specifies (1) "critical 11 control points and
elements; (2) compliance standards; (3) tests and inspections to ensure
that "critical" control points are monitored and the standards are met;
and (4) evidence that the plant is complying with the plans it pro-
duced. An FSIS Quality Control Inspection will verify that the system
is being followed.

On an unannounced schedule, the plant's TQC program is evaluated by
FSIS. If a plant frequently fails to operate according to its TQC
system, if deficiencies recur, or if corrective action is not
acceptable, the quality control inspector follows specific steps
outlined in FSIS regulations. If this does not result in improvement,
then the USDA quality control inspector issues a written notice to plant
management. If the plant is still not responsive, further steps include
possible termination of approval of the plant's TQC. All discrepancies
and actions to be taken when the plant is not in compliance with its
quality control system are noted and these matters are discussed with
plant officials.

The TQC system is more systematic, objective, and organized than
traditional inspection. Records and controls in plants that use TQC

.abasement and the FSIS inspector a .ore complete

-n .ab

picture of the processing procedure than presented by traditional
processing inspection procedures. Problems can occur with any system,
of course! Table 7-3 shows how possible problems can be minimized.

As of April 1, 1985, USDA had approved 475 TQC systems, covering
about 7% of all meat and poultry processing plants and 9Z of the
processed products (FSIS, personal communication, 1985). Plans had been
submitted for 115 more plants, but they have not yet been approved; 46
systems have been terminated by action of either the plant or FSIS.

In the judgment of the committee, TQC should lead to better
compliance in plants that are committed to the approach , to a reduced
need for FSIS supervision, and, therefore, to cost savings. Adequate
data, however, are not yet available to confirm this view. A
nondepartmental study team evaluated 15 establishments under the program
(Temple, Barker, & Sloane, Inc., 1984). The team concluded that the TQC
concept ensures compliance with USDA requirements and that it could
provide even more confidence in such compliance than traditional
inspection because it allows the inspector to review a much broader
scope of plant operations. The team also concluded that: the TQC program
is hindered by the variable, and generally low, training in these areas
of some meat packers and of federal inspectors in quality control, and
that until this improves the resulting mode of inspection will in some
cases be a hybrid of traditional and TQC approaches. In its final
summary the team stated that TQC offers potential benefits to plants,
the public, and FSIS by improving quality and production efficiency.
Essential for its success is the commitment of plant management to the
program and the practical understanding of a good inspector and plant
staffs of quality control concepts and tools.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

"Processed" meat and poultry products are defined as those in which
the carcass identity is lost or subjected to some treatment that affects
its texture, color, and flavor. The nature of microbial hazards and the
extent of spoilage depend on the specific process used. Proper
processing and storage can minimize or prevent risks to health and
prolong shelf life. Spoilage or outbreaks of food-borne disease from
processed meat and poultry products result from process failures,
contamination of the product after processing, or from improper
storage. It should be kept in mind that the microorganisms that are
potential pathogens are not necessarily the same as those that cause
spoilage and that spoilage might be due to microorganisms that are not
pathogens .

Some processing plants have their own quality control/quality
assurance programs to maintain product consistency and standards and to

117

TABLE 7-3 , Potential Problems and Safeguards of the Total Quality
Control (TQC) Program

Possible Problems

Safeguards

Falsification of quality control data
or failure to follow the control plan

Plants improperly learning of
unannounced inspection

Inspectors insufficiently trained to
handle quality control inspection

Collusion between inspectors and
plant personnel

A large amount of data, which dilutes
crucial critical control points

Plans adopted without total corporate
commitment to avert conventional
inspection or management's failure
to give quality control personnel
sufficient authority to perform
their responsibility

The "newness" of the quality control
system wears down and the plant loses
its enthusiasm

A system so complex that only large
plants can take full advantage of
this approach

Concern over the ultimate
cost of the product

Concern that the system may be-
come mandatory for all process-
ing plants

Make unannounced inspections with
appropriate penalties for violations

Send a second inspection team
unannounced to both plant and local
inspectors

Upgrade educational levels for
inspectors who enter quality control
inspection and give extensive USDA-
sponsored training to inspectors

Take the same preventive action as
taken for traditional inspection

Stress critical control points
in the TQC plan and at each review
session; deal with violations
promptly and appropriately

Get a written TQC plan that is
approved by USDA, and terminate the
program if the plan is not followed

Observe this situation during

the unannounced inspections

and if it occurs either rejuvenate

or terminate the plan; if rejuvenated,

more-frequent inspections

should be made to verify that the

system is working

Provide consultation and assis-
tance to smaller plants and em-
phasize the "crucial" critical
control points

Confirm that TQC systems

reduce the cost of operation

by increasing uniformity (Theno, 1981)

Keep the system voluntary because
enthusiasm of plant management
is essential to a successful
program

118

protect the reputation of the company . This is also done to meet buyer
specifications and to decrease losses. These plant-initiated quality
control programs, which frequently exceed FSIS guidelines , merit praise
and should be encouraged. However, some plants use the FSIS inspectors
as the basis of their quality control efforts and do not take major
responsibility in this area. Thus continuous inspection of products ,
processes, and the plant by FSIS is required in many cases.

Processing plants with the capability or proven practice of
instituting their own effective quality control programs reasonably
might not require continuous inspection by FSIS. With this as an
important consideration and with the increasing demands on the resources
of FSIS, the total quality control program was proposed and instituted
on a voluntary basis. In this program, the managers of the processing
plant are made responsible for quality control procedures and for
day-to-day and process-by-process inspection. The role of FSIS in TQC
is one of monitoring and verifying that the processing procedures comply
with federal laws and regulations, on the basis of evidence provided by
plant managers and FSIS's own validation. As of April 1985, USDA had
approved TQC systems in 7% of the meat and poultry processing plants,
which produce 9% of the processed products in the United States.

9 The committee recommends that FSIS inspection approaches
(traditional and total quality control) be strengthened in the areas of
establishing and letting inspectors and plant personnel know about
priorities in terms of which facets of inspection are the most
important. Some aspects of USDA regulations are more important than
others in providing assurance of food safety and product wholesomeness,
a distinction that is not always reflected in regulations or during
inspections .

The committee recommends that FSIS reevaluate the use of the term
critical control point and restrict its use to those operations that if
incorrectly performed could increase food-borne disease or food
spoilage. More minor items may be referred to as control points or
noncritical regulated items. (See Chapter 8 for examples of critical
control points.)

The committee recommends that the recruitment and training of
inspectors be made appropriate to the expanding technical aspects of
their role in total quality control and the hazard analysis critical
control point approach. An internal working group augmented by outside
consultants should be created and used to evaluate FSIS personnel needs
as policy and technology changes.

It is recommended that FSIS and the meat and poultry processing
plants under their supervision use state-of-the-science technology
(e.g., thermocouples and potentiometers) for measuring and recording
time-temperature exposure of foods during processing (heating and
cooling) .

119

Methods should be developed to minimize the microbial load of meat
following initial processing., prior to packaging and distribution. Not
only would this prevent the spread of disease from animals to humans, it
would also prevent spoilage and prolong shelf life.

From a disease-control standpoint, the committee recommends that
labels, stickers, or inserted leaflets be used to provide useful
information, when appropriate, on safe ways to thaw, cook, and handle
( e gj cool and reheat) cooked products and should list precautions to
avoid cross-contamination.

REFERENCES

Angelotti, R. 1978. Quality assurance programs for meat and poultry
inspection and processing. Food Technol. 32:48-50.

Barber, L. E., and R. H. Deibel. 1972. Effect of pH and oxygen
tension on staphyloccocal growth and enterotoxin formation in
fermented sausage. Appl. Microbiol. 24:891-898.

Blake, P. A., M. A. Horwitz, L. Hopkins, G. L. Lombard, J. E.

McCroan, J. C. Prucha, and M. H. Merson. 1977. Type A botulism
from commercially canned beef stew. South. Med. J. 70:5-7.

Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. 1977. Study of the Federal Meat and
Poultry Inspection Program. Vols. 1-3. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, B.C.

Bryan, F. L. 1980. Foodborne diseases in the United States

associated with meat and poultry. J. Food Protect. 43:140-150.

Bryan, F. L., J. C. Ayres, and A. A. Kraft. 1968. Destruction of
Salmonellae and indicator organisms during thermal processing of
turkey rolls. Poultry Sci. 47:1966-1978.

CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology). 1980. Foods
from Animals: Quantity, Quality and Safety. Report No. 82.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1974. Type A botulism due to a
commercial product Georgia. MMWR 23:417.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1975a. Staphylococcal food

poisoning associated with italian dry salami California. MMWR
24:374, 379.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1975b. Salmonella newport

contamination of hamburger: Colorado and Maryland. MMWR 24:438,
443.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control) . 1976a Salmonella saint-paul In
pre-cooked roasts of beef New Jersey* MMWR 25:34, 39.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1976b. Salmonella bovis-mprblficans
in precooked roasts of beef. MMWR 25% 333-334 .

CDC (Centers for Disease Control) . 1976c Reported outbreaks . Outbreak
5 Connecticut- Trichinosis Surveillance Reports 11,

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1976d* Trichinosis outbreak Iowa*
MMWR 25s 109-110 .

CDC (Centers for Disease Control) . 1977a* Follow-up on multi-state
outbreak of Salmonella newport transmitted by precooked roasts of
beef. MMWR 26:286.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1977b. Follow-up on Salmonella
bovis-morbif leans Pennsylvania. MMWR 26s 14, 19.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1977c. Follow-up on Salmonella
organisms in precooked roast beef. MMWR 26:310.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1977d. Follow-up on salmonellae in
precooked roasts of beef. MMWR 26 2 394 , 399.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1977e. Multi-state outbreak of
Salmonella newport transmitted by precooked roasts of beef. MMWR
26:277-278.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1977 f . Type A botulism associated
with commercial pot pie Calif ornla . MMWR 26:186, 192.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1978. Salmonellae in precooked
roasts of beef New York. MMWR 27:315.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1979. Staphylococcal food poisoning
associated with genoa and hard salami United States. MMWR
28:179-180.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1981a. Multiple outbreaks of

salmonellosis associated with pre-cooked roast beef Pennsylvania,
New York, Vermont. MMWR 30:569-570.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1981b. Multi-state outbreak of
salmonellosis caused by pre-cooked roast beef. MMWR 30:391-392.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1982. Isolation of E. coli 0157 :H7
from sporadic cases of hemorrhagic colitis United States. MMWR
31:580, 585.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 1983a. Botulism and commercial pot
pie California. MMWR 32:39-40, 45.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control) . 1983b. Interstate common-source
outbreaks of staphylococcal food poisoning North Carolina,
Pennsylvania . MMWR 32:183-184, 189.

CDHS (California Department of Health Services), 1975. Botulism Home
canned figs and commercial chicken pot pie. California Morbidity
46:1.

CDHS (California Department of Health Services). 1976. Type A botulism
associated with commercial pot pie. California Morbidity 51:1.

CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). 1980a. Part 318, Entry into Official
Establishments; Reinspection and Preparation of Products. Pp.
194-225 in Title 9, Animals and Animal Products; Chapter III, Food
Safety and Inspection Service, Meat and Poultry Inspection,
Department of Agriculture; Subchapter A, Mandatory Meat Inspection.
Office of the Federal Register, Washington, D.C.

CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). 1980b. Part 381, Poultry Products
Inspection Regulations. Pp. 339-440 in Title 9, Animals and Animal
Products; Chapter III, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Meat and
Poultry Inspection, Department of Agriculture; Subchapter C,
Mandatory Poultry Products Inspection. Office of the Federal
Register, Washington, D.C.

DHEW (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). 1979.
Botulism in the United States, 1899-1977. Center for Disease
Control, U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Atlanta, Georgia.

Fontaine, R. E., S. Arnon, W. T. Martin, T. M. Vernon, Jr., E. J.

Gangarosa, J. J. Farmer, III, A. B. Moran, J. H. Silliker, and D. L.
Decker. 1978. Raw hamburger: An interstate common source of human
salmonellosis. Am. J. Epidemiol. 107:36-45.

Frank, H. K. 1972. Mykotoxine und ihre Produzenten in

landwirtschaftlichen Produkten. Ber. Landwirtsch. 50:240-255.

Goodfellow, S. J., and W. L. Brown. 1978. Fate of Salmonella inoculated
into beef for cooking. J. Food Protect. 41:598-605.

ICMSF (International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for
Foods). 1980. Microbial Ecology of Foods. Volume II. Food
Commodities. Academic Press, New York.

Libby, J. A. 1975. Meat Hygiene, Fourth edition. Lea & Febiger,
Philadelphia.

Meyer, K. F., and B. Eddie. 1965. Sixty-five Years of Human Botulism

in the United States and Canada. George Williams Hooper Foundation,

University of California, San Francisco Medical Center, San
Francisco.

122

NRG (National Research Council) . 1985 . An Evaluation of the Role of
Microbiological Criteria ia Foods and Food Ingredients. Report of
the Subcommittee on Microbiological Criteria, Committee on Food
Protection, Food and Nutrition Board. National Academy Press,
Washington, B.C.

Riley, L. W. , R. S. Remis, S. D. Helgerson, H. B. McGee, J. G. Wells,
B. R* Davis, R. J. Hebert, E. S. Olcott, L. H. Johnson, N. T.
Hargrett, P. A. Blake, and M. Lo Cohen. 1983. Hemorrhagic colitis
associated with a rare Escherichia coll serotype. N. Engl. J. Med.
3082681-685.

Sebald, M. , and J. Jouglard. 1977. Aspects actuels du botulisme.
Rev. Prat. 27; 173-17 6.

Temple, Barker, & Sloane, Inc. 1984. A Technical Evaluation of the
Total Quality Control Program of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service. Draft Report prepared for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Temple,
Barker & Sloane, Lexington, Massachusetts.

Theno, D. M. 1981. QC for processed meats i Checks and balances.
Meat Industry 27(7): 34-35.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1980. USDA QC Regulations.

Processed Products Inspection Division, Meat and Poultry Inspection
Technical Services, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1981. Labels on Meat and
Poultry Products. Agricultural Information Bulletin 443. Food
Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1982. Chemistry Quality

Assurance Handbook. Vol 1: Principles. Food Safety and Quality
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1983. Chemistry Quality

Assurance Handbook. Vol 2: Specific Methods. Food Safety and
Quality Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1984a. Briefing Book. Prepared
for the Committee to Evaluate the Scientific Basis of the Nation's
Meat and Poultry Inspection Program, Food and Nutrition Board,
National Research Council, February 16, 1984. Food Safety and
Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

123

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), 1984b. Quality Control
Guidebook. Agriculture Handbook No. 612. Food Safety and
Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C,

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1984c. Total Quality Control
Inspection: What It Means for You and for the Processor. Food
Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D,C. Slide presentation.

The Hazard Analysis Critical Control
Point Approach to Food Safety

This chapter describes the basic principles of the hazard analysis
critical control point (HACCP) system and reviews general critical
control points for typical processing operations*

THE PRINCIPLES OF HACCP

The HACCP system for meat or poultry consists of an assessment of
hazards associated with such operations, the determination of critical
control points necessary to prevent or control the identified hazards,
and the establishment of procedures to monitor (check or verify) the
critical control points.

This approach is applicable to the handling of meat and poultry in
homes (Zottola and Wolfe, 1980), in food-service establishments (Bobeng
and David, 1977; Bryan 1981a,b; Bryan and McKinley, 1974, 1979;
Unklesbay et_ al^. , 1977), and in any type of food processing plant
(Bauman, 1974; DHEW, 1972; Ito, 1974; Kauffman and Schaffner, 1974;
Peterson and Gunnerson, 1974; WHO/ICMSF, 1982). The Subcommittee on
Microbiological Criteria for Foods and Food Ingredients of the National
Research Council's Committee on Food Protection has endorsed (NRC,
1985) HACCP as an effective and rational approach to the assurance of
food safety and prevention of spoilage.

According to D.L. Houston, Administrator of the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) (personal communication, 1984), HACCP is
being incorporated as part of the quality control approach of FSIS and
this committee endorses the usage of the HACCP concept in that
approach. The HACCP approach emphasizes those aspects of an operation
that are critical to ensuring food safety and preventing spoilage; it
therefore relates more specifically to health hazards than to other
aspects of the total quality control (TQC) approach, such as aesthetic
considerations, quality, or compliance with a set of regulations.

124

A hazard analysis is an evaluation of all procedures during the
production, processing, distribution, and use of raw materials or food
products. It includes:

identification of potentially hazardous raw materials and
foods that may contain poisonous substances, pathogens, or
large numbers of food spoilage microorganisms, and
identification of substrates or conditions that can support
microbial growth;

determination of sources and specific points of chemical and
microbiological contamination through observations of each
step and operation in the process;

determination of the potential for microorganisms or toxic
substances to persist during a process; and

determination of the potential for microorganisms to multiply
(WHO/ICMSF, 1982).

Hazards, therefore, mean unacceptable growth of, survival of, or
contamination by microorganisms of concern to safety or spoilage and
the unacceptable production or persistence of microbial metabolic
products in a food. The analysis is carried out on all existing
products, on any new product that a processor intends to manufacture,
and whenever substantial changes in raw materials, product formulation,
processing, packaging, distribution, or intended use could adversely
affect the safety or shelf life of a product.

Certain key questions need to be addressed during a hazard analysis:

9 Product formulation and packaging What are the ingredients?
What is the pH? Are toxic substances added? If so, what is the
concentration? What type and numbers of microorganisms are likely to
be present? What is the water activity? Are preservatives used? If
so, what is their nature? What type of packaging is used and is this
integral to product stability?

The process Are live animals or raw products likely to be
contaminated with pathogens? Are these likely to be spread to
carcasses and cuts of meat during processing? What is the likelihood
that the microorganisms of concern will be killed during processing
(e.g., cooking, retorting)? Is there a likelihood of contamination
after processing, or that the microorganisms will multiply during
processing or storage?

The conditions of intended distribution and use Is the product
distributed under ambient, hot, or cold storage temperatures? What is
its expected shelf life during distribution, storage, and use? How

will the product be prepared for consumption? Is it likely to be
cooked and then held for a period before consumption? If so, is it
likely to be held hot, cold, frozen, or at warm temperatures? What
mishandling of the product is likely to occur during marketing or in
the hands of the consumer?

The answers to these questions, along with other available
information, allow a preliminary assessment of the potential hazard(s),
including an evaluation of the effects of mishandling on product safety
and stability*

It may be desirable and in many cases necessary to check the
assessment by testing for the presence of microorganisms or chemical
substances of concern or by inoculating the product with appropriate
food-borne pathogens and potential spoilage organisms. The inoculated
food must be subjected to a simulation of routine processing and
packaging under intended marketing conditions and then be subjected to
anticipated storage, distribution, and expected-use conditions. This
assessment should include evaluation of the effects of mishandling on
product safety and stability. Test protocols, including the nature and
size of the inoculum as well as other details, should be under the
direction of an expert food microbiologist or toxicologist, as
appropriate (WHO/ICMSF, 1982).

Critical Control Points

Hazards that are detected at one or more points of a process or
stages of the food chain may be eliminated at certain key junctures
referred to as critical control points. In this context, these are
defined as locations or processing procedures at which control can be
exercised over parameters that if not controlled properly could lead to
unacceptable contamination, survival, or growth of food-borne pathogens
or spoilage organisms or to the unacceptable production or persistence
of microbial metabolic products.

Incoming raw materials, for example, may constitute critical
control points, particularly if there are no subsequent operations to
eliminate the hazards or if the contaminants are likely to be
heat-resistant spores. The time and temperature of heat processing are
obvious critical control points. Similarly, the temperature at which
products are held prior to and during cooling and freezing, the volume
being cooled, and the length of time products are held are critical
control points. The cleaning of equipment that contacts products,
particularly heat-processed products, is often a critical control
point, as is the handling of cooked products by workers. (Further
details of the critical control points in meat and poultry production,
slaughtering, and processing are given later in this chapter.)

Sometimes critical control points are obvious from the hazard
analysis or from investigations of disease outbreaks that occur when
similar procedures have been followed. At other times, however, more

127

extensive research on the food or the process may be necessary to
establish appropriate control points. Statistically valid sampling
procedures may need to be used and repeated several times in order to
identify stages in processing and the environment when contamination,
survival of contaminants, or microbial growth may occur (WHO/ICMSF,
1982).

These critical control points differ somewhat from those described
in Chapter 7 in the section on total quality control in that HACCP
critical control points only relate to operations that if not
satisfactorily carried out could lead to food-borne disease or spoilage
and they are not directly concerned with aesthetics or quality. Thus,
they are crucial (critical) to ensuring safety and to maintaining a
satisfactory shelf life of a product. Critical control points as
applied in the total quality control program refer to measures taken to
comply with regulations. These may relate to concerns about safety,
wholesomeness, quantity, aesthetics, or standard operating procedures
that are referenced in a regulation, and some are either unrelated or
indirectly related to food safety.

The hazard analyses and critical control point determinations might
be done by qualified plant personnel, by hired consultants, or by
qualified FSIS staff or they might be done jointly. Review of the
system and final approval, however, needs to be done by qualified FSIS
supervisory and technical staff.

Monitoring

Critical control points must be monitored continuously or
periodically, as appropriate, to ensure that they are under control.
This monitoring may involve making observations, taking temperature
measurements, collecting samples, and performing appropriate chemical,
physical, or microbiological analyses. Appropriate monitoring tests
must be determined for each critical control point, the frequency of
evaluation must be specified, and data must be recorded. FSIS
personnel will need to verify that the monitoring is carried out
properly by plant personnel.

The type of monitoring depends upon the nature of the critical
control point under consideration (WHO/ICMSF, 1982). For example, if a
raw material is a critical control point, a specification can be set
for that raw material detailing the microbiological, chemical, or other
test, the sampling plan, and the limits to be used. Ideally, the
supplier will perform the required tests and ensure that the materials
comply with the specifications before the product is delivered to the
user. It may be advisable, however, for the user to test the
consignment upon receipt, particularly if it is from a new supplier.
Raw material storage conditions should be monitored to ensure that the
quality of the material is maintained satisfactorily until it is used.

Monitoring the critical control points of processing operations is
usually achieved by physical and chemical tests, because the results of
these are available more rapidly . There are, however , situations where
in-process microbiological monitoring is necessary . For example, it
may also be necessary to monitor the effectiveness of sanitation
measures by the use of microbiological tests. In situations where a
heat-stable toxin is a potential hazard, a product of concern should be
examined for toxicogenic organisms prior to a heat process to assess
the likelihood of a hazard*

Visual observation is an important means of monitoring critical
control points of many slaughtering and processing operations.
Personnel responsible for such monitoring need appropriate training.
Checklists should be used to monitor critical control points. These
should detail the locations of critical control points, the monitoring
procedures, and monitoring frequency, and they should specify criteria
for satisfactory compliance.

End-product monitoring by microbiological testing is generally very
limited. More often, determination of product attributes (such as pH,
water activity, preservative level, and salt content) will give far
more information about safety and stability. There are situations,
however, where microbiological examination of the finished product
(e.g., the examination of cooked "roast" beef for Salmonella) would
provide valuable information.

HACCP is intended to provide a high degree of food safety
assurance. To be implemented effectively, however, those who conduct
the analyses, identify critical control points, and select monitoring
procedures must be well versed in food science, food microbiology, and
perhaps toxicology as well as in meat and poultry technology and
processing. Staff who monitor critical control points or who evaluate
the monitoring of these points do not need as much education in the
sciences, but they must have other skills to carry out appropriate
organoleptic, chemical, physical, or microbiological monitoring.

CRITICAL CONTROL POINTS IN THE MEAT AND POULTRY INDUSTRY

Most of the rest of this chapter highlights some of the critical
control points for production, slaughtering, and processing
operations. These and other critical control points that are unique to
a particular operation or plant need to be used as the prime focus of
an HACCP system, a traditional inspection, or the TQC programs used in
plants .

Animal Production

Wholesomeness and safety of meat and poultry are based in part on
the health of live animals, their feed, and the environment under which
they are raised. Drug and pesticide residues in meat and poultry may

constitute a health hazard to some people* Therefore, the use of
pesticides in the immediate environment of animals and in animal dips
is also a critical control point* The type, quantity, and time of
application of antibiotics on farms constitute critical control points
that often can be monitored. Antibiotic-resistant strains of pathogens
may emerge as a result of treating animals or using antibiotics in feed
(see Chapter 4). These applications do not obviate the carrier state,
and other animals can be infected with food-borne pathogens without
showing signs of illness. These animals carry pathogens into
slaughterhouses, where they may be spread to carcasses and processed
products. This situation is difficult to control*

Feed and water containing infectious agents, toxic chemicals, or
mycotoxins are also hazards. Use of Salmonella-free feed, for example,
is a husbandry practice that can have a major impact on preventing
livestock from becoming infected with this pathogen. The way grains
and meals are stored can either promote or prevent mold growth and
mycotoxin production and is thus a critical control point, as are the
sanitation of the animal housing facilities and proper manure disposal.

Although these general points hold for all production facilities,
other critical control points are unique to hatchery or farm practices
for the species of animal being produced.

Slaughtering/Dressing

Generalized critical control points in slaughtering operations for
all species of food-animals include the health of the live animals;
sanitary conditions during transport, slaughtering, and dressing; the
rate of carcass cooling; and time-temperature conditions of storage and
distribution of the carcasses.

Antemortem inspection to detect sick and dying animals and to
diagnose certain diseased conditions in animals is an example of
monitoring a critical control point. Skinning or dehairing slaughtered
animals and removing intestines are the operations that lead to carcass
contamination. A microbial count similar to that found on dressed
carcasses is established during these operations. The temperature of
scald water becomes a critical control point in poultry and swine
slaughtering operations. Thorough washing of poultry carcasses after
picking and washing of swine carcasses after dehairing are also
critical control points because of the transfer and cross-contamination
-f Salmonella and other microorganisms during picking and dehairing.

Processed Products

Raw Meat. The surfaces of carcasses and of primal, subprimal, and
retail cuts of meat are contaminated by a variety of microorganisms,
including low levels of some pathogens. Salmonella, Campylobacter
spp. , Clostridium spp. , and S t aphy lo co ecus aureus are frequently on
these surfaces. When carcasses are cut, these microorganisms can

cross-contaminate workers' hands , cutting boards, knives, table tops,
saws, and other pieces of equipment and can then be transferred from
the equipment, via cleaning cloths, to other equipment. The critical
control points in processing are, therefore, the areas where steps can
be taken to minimize this cross-contamination and the sanitation of
utensils and equipment. The temperature in rooms of deboning and
storage and the duration of storage are also critical control points.

Raw, Ground Meat. Critical control points in the production of
raw, ground meat are similar to those for retail cuts equipment
sanitation, prevention of cross-contamination, and time-temperature
control. In addition, the condition of ingredients (trimmings) are
also important. Good quality ingredients and effective cleaning of
equipment are essential. Different grinders (or adequate cleaning
between uses) need to be used for pork products and other types of meat
products to prevent cross-contamination with Trichinella spiralis.
Ingredients should be cold and ground at temperatures as near freezing
as practicable. Short-term storage for holding ground products at
temperatures near 32F (0C) is a critical control point.

Raw, Frozen Meat. For frozen products, critical points up to the
time of freezing are the same as those for chilled products. In
addition, proper packaging, rapid freezing, and the time and
temperature the products are kept frozen and thawed are critical
control points.

Vacuum-Packed Raw Meat and Poultry. Anaerobic conditions in
vacuum-packed meat and poultry in a carbon dioxide or nitrogen
atmosphere inhibit growth of aerobic flora that commonly spoil
unpackaged raw meat. In vacuum-packed products this flora is replaced
by lactic acid bacteria, which multiply at different rates and produce
different metabolic products, and the shelf life of these products is
therefore prolonged. Vacuum packaging, the integrity of the package,
and the time and temperature conditions of storage are critical
controlling factors for prolonging the shelf life of these meat and
poultry products.

Raw, Cured Meat. Critical control points for raw, cured meats are
the quality of the meat (e.g., beef briskets for corned beef and pork
bellies for bacon), the salt and nitrite concentration of the brine,
and the microbiological load of the pickle solution (containing salt,
nitrite, and perhaps nitrate). If salt and nitrite concentrations and
pH are not controlled, spoilage organisms can multiply. Bacon is
subjected to a mild heat treatment (128 to 130F/53.3 to
54.4C) to fix the cured-meat color, but this temperature is
insufficient to kill either trichinae or vegetative forms of pathogenic
bacteria so it is not a critical control point. If cured meats are to
be packaged in oxygen-permeable films, which is uncommon today, the air
of the packaging area becomes a control point. Time and temperature of
storage are also critical control points for raw, cured meat products.

Critical control points of shelf-stable (low water activity) salted
raw and salted cured meats (e.g., salt pork, dry-cured bacon, and
dry-cured "country-cured" hams) are proper penetration and
equilibration of the curing salts (sodium chloride and nitrite) to
achieve appropriate moisture loss resulting in proper water activity
levels. Control of temperature during drying of salted meats is also a
critical control point to prevent growth of Staphylococcus aureus or
spoilage flora before the curing salts diffuse into the product.

The concentration of chemical additives, particularly nitrites, in
cured meat and poultry products is a critical control point that
requires careful monitoring.

Fermented Sausage. The most critical factor in the processing of
fermented sausages is the rapid production of acid by microorganisms to
prevent the formation of staphylococcal entero toxin. This can be
achieved by a proper fermentation, which is promoted by rapid growth of
lactic acid bacteria through carefully controlled environmental
conditions .

Controlling such undesirable growth includes a rapid decrease In
pH, a decrease of water activity, and buildup of flora that are
competitive with or inhibitory to pathogens. Critical control points
vary with the method of fermentation, which is selected on the basis of
tradition and the type of product being produced. The greatest risk
occurs if products are naturally fermented directly after stuffing if
product temperature rises. Critical control points are product
temperature, pH, and the speed of pH decrease. (Glucono- 6 -lactone is
sometimes added to effect a more rapid decrease of pH.)

Risk with fermenting meat is reduced by lowering the temperature of
the stuffed product through cold storage before fermentation or by
selecting a natural lactic microflora before transfer to the
fermentation room. The risk is further reduced if a sufficient amount
of previously fermented product is added. Addition of a pure culture
of fermenting organism is, however, the most dependable control.
Monitoring of the finished product is achieved by examining the
appearance of the product, its firmness, and the pH.

Smoking might be used to further dry (reduce the water activity of)
a product, which concentrates the curing ingredients, but this process
alone without sufficient heat cannot be relied upon to kill either
trichinae or vegetative forms of pathogenic bacteria. After
fermentation, pork products must be heated to a minimum of 137F
(58.3C) or frozen to destroy trichinae. Those conditions, which are
considered critical to assure safety of fermented products, must be
monitored. Further control Is achieved by refrigerated storage.

Dried Meat and Poultry. The quality of the raw product and the
control of contamination prior to drying are essential. Control of
time and temperature is critical during drying to lower the moisture

content enough to provide shelf stability. Temperatures during many
drying operations, however, are not always high enough to kill
pathogens. Dried products must be protected from reabsorption of
moisture by suitable packaging. Time-temperature control of the
product after rehydration is also critical to minimize microbial growth
in the reconstituted product.

Pasteurized Meat and Poultry. The critical control points of
cooked, uncured products, in addition to the quality of the raw
ingredients, are the time and temperature of the cook, the rate of
cooling, the way products are handled after cooking, equipment
sanitation, and subsequent cold storage. Time-temperature requirements
for cooked products should be continuously monitored and the
measurements recorded. Monitoring the rate of cooling is also
essential, as is the chlorine level of water when water-bath cooling is
used.

Sampling products after heat processing and testing them for
Salmonella or other microorganisms for which a microbiological
standard, specification, or guideline has been developed is another way
to monitor these critical control points. Spores such as those of
Clostridium perfringens, however, are not inactivated during
pasteurization. A negative test for Salmonella does not indicate
safety from spore-forming bacteria.

Repackaging, boning, slicing, and other handling operations are
critical control points that require monitoring. This monitoring might
be supplemented by testing products for Escherichia oTi if
cross-contamination is possible or for Staphylo coccus aureus if
contamination by workers is likely. Cooking operations should be
physically separated from raw meat and poultry processing areas and, if
practicable, different equipment and utensils should be used and
different workers employed to prevent cross-contamination.

The critical control points for uncured products also apply to
cooked cured products. In addition, the time and temperature of heat
processing (e.g., water baths for canned hams and plastic packaged beef
or smoke ovens for wieners) are control points that require continuous
or terminal monitoring. Cooked products must be chilled rapidly enough
to preclude germination of spores and multiplication of resulting
vegetative cells. Chlorine levels of chill water should be monitored.
The cleanliness of equipment used to convey, slice, strip, or package,
or that otherwise comes into contact with, cooked products is a
critical control point.

Canned Uncured Meat and Poultry. Time-temperature control of the
heat process and pH evaluation of these products are essential critical
control points. Products having pH values of 4.6 or below are
considered high acid products and need only a heat process that assures
shelf stability.

Low-acid, canned foods (pH greater than 4.6) must be given
time -temperature exposures that will kill up to 10^2 Clostridium
j>pj:ulinum spores. Critical control points for this "botulism cook 1 '
include exhaust-product temperatures and retort equipment checks before
processing, as well as the time, pressure, and temperature evaluation
and recording during retorting. Heated cans must be cooled in an
adequately chlorinated water bath in case the cans have pin holes or
the seam or mastic allow water to enter during cooling. Processed
product containers should also be inspected for seam and other
defects. Samples of the canned product are often incubated at elevated
temperatures to determine shelf life.

Shelf -Stable, Canned Cured Meat and Poultry. Critical control
points are proper curing (including proper salt and nitrite
concentrations), microbial quality of ingredients, level of spore
contamination, proper heat processing, container integrity, and proper
cooling. Specific critical control points depend on the
physicochemical nature of certain products. The stability and safety
of canned hams and luncheon meats, for example, depend on the presence
of nitrites and salt and on minimal contamination with C_. botulinum as
well as a thermal process that injures surviving spores so that they
cannot germinate and multiply in the cured meat. Low water activity is
a critical control point for products such as canned sausages in hot
oil, sliced dried beef in vacuum-sealed jars, and canned fired bacon.
Brine and acid content, integrity of airtight containers, and
temperature control during storage are important for products such as
pickled pigs 1 feet and pickled sausage that are immersed in vinegar
brine.

Radicidized (Irradiation Pasteurized) Meat and Poultry.
Radicidized products should be packaged prior to irradiation. The
proper dose of radiation depends on the nature of the product (e.g.,
the size of its container and whether it is raw, dried, or frozen).
Further control points are package integrity and the manner and
temperature of storage.

Radappertized (Commercially Sterilized) Meat and Poultry. The most
important critical control point of radappertization is the strict
assurance that the radiation dosage is high enough to sterilize the
product (equivalent to a botulism cook). Because cooling is not
necessary, post-radappertizing contamination is unlikely unless a
package breaks.

Meat and Poultry Products After Processing

Critical control points in the shipment of carcass meat and poultry
are the microbial load at the time of shipment, the internal
temperature at the time of loading, and the air temperature and
movement in the transport vehicle and storage warehouse. Insect and
rodent control may be critical during storage of paper- and
plastic-packaged dry products. Storage temperature, methods of loading

walk-in refrigerators and display cases , and cleanliness of cutting
boards and blocks, grinders, saws, tenderizers, and cutting utensils
are key points in retail stores.

The critical control points during preparation in food-service
establishments and homes vary with the product, equipment, and
food-service system. Cooking, hot-holding, and handling afterward are
often critical. For foods left over or prepared hours before they are
to be eaten, cooling and reheating are critical control points.
Prevention of cross-contamination within kitchens and proper cleaning
of kitchen equipment are also critical.

TRAINING

Processing operations and the variety of processes applied to meat
and poultry are complex and becoming more so. Personnel in charge of
quality control operations and those who conduct hazard analyses and
identify critical control points must have appropriate educational
backgrounds, including understanding of HACCP principles, food (meat
and poultry) science, food microbiology (and possibly toxicology), and
step-by-step processing operations.

Inspectors will need at least an overview of this information as
well as specific training in skills required to monitor critical
control points. Quality control personnel need to know how to develop
quality control systems appropriate for their operations. Plant
personnel must know the hazards that may be associated with the
products they process, the critical control points, and ways to monitor
these points.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The principles of the hazard analysis critical control point
approach were applied to the hazards associated with any operation
involving meat or poultry, to determine the critical control points
(CCPs), and to establish procedures to monitor them. These CCPs are
related to public health and food spoilage aspects of the operation and
need to be controlled carefully to eliminate health hazards. The
methods of analyzing hazards, determining CCPs, and monitoring them at
each phase of meat and poultry production, slaughter, and processing
are described in this chapter.

Public health protection is one of the broad goals of the Food
Safety and Inspection Service. In a communication from FSIS
Administrator Donald L. Houston, it is stated that the concept of HACCP
is now part of a strategy of FSIS, particularly in reference to "the
Department's procedures for approving quality control plans in
processing plants ..."(emphasis added). The committee, recognizing the
implementation of the strategy of HACCP into the FSIS program,

encourages FSIS to move as vigorously as possible in the application of
the HACCP concept to each and every step in plant operations, in all
types of enterprises involved in the production, processing, and
storage of meat and poultry products.

The critical control points described in this chapter, and others
that are appropriate to an operation, need to be carefully identified,
controlled, and monitored- The committee emphasizes the special
significance of the term "critical" in this phrase in order to restrict
the terra to the control points related to public health and food
spoilage. Critical control points are specific for each product and
each operation within each plant. For inspections to be scientifically
sound, these critical points must be given foremost importance over
other control points related to aesthetic considerations or those
considered as violations of regulations. By emphasizing the critical
control points related to public health and food spoilage over those
that are unrelated, FSIS could attain the highest degree of food safety
within its available resources.

Hazard analyses for each product within each phase of the operation
must be performed by qualified persons and must either be developed
under FSIS supervision or reviewed by FSIS. The elements of the HACCP
system need to be emphasized during the continual education of
inspection personnel so that they can evaluate monitoring systems and
detect new or missed hazards. FSIS technical staff (such as meat and
food scientists, meat and food technologists, meat and food
microbiologists, and toxicologists) should be trained to conduct hazard
analyses, identify critical control points, and recommend control
measures and monitoring procedures, so that they can effectively review
HACCP systems that are submitted by industry and can act as technical
consultants for inspectors.

Continuous inspection is not needed to ensure food safety in meat
and poultry processing plants in which hazards and critical control
points have been identified and monitored by qualified staff. (In
slaughter facilities, however, continuous inspection is currently
needed.) Depending on the hazards (which should be based in part on
epidemiological data, if available) and the reliability of plant
personnel in monitoring critical control points, a variable-time
inspection approach is recommended. As long as there is evidence that
the critical control points have been identified and monitored and that
appropriate standards and guidelines are met, a high degree of safety
can be assured. In plants that have had problems in the past or that
are not monitoring critical control points, there may be reasons to
have continuous inspection. Therefore, the committee suggests that the
critical control points be confirmed by FSIS and monitored, as
applicable, by plant personnel and verified by trained FSIS inspectors.

Furthermore, FSIS regulations should be considered for systematic
review to see that critical control points and appropriate monitoring
procedures are specified to prevent hazards during production,

slaughtering 5 and processing operations* Consideration should be given
to making specified critical control points and recommended monitoring
procedures an integral part of all future regulations

REFERENCES

Bauman, H. E. 1974. The HACCP concept and microbiological hazard
categories. Food Technol. 28:30, 32, 34 , 74.

Bobeng, B. J., and B. D. David. 1977. HACCP models for quality
control of entree production in food service systems. J. Food
Protect. 40 -.632-638.

Bryan, F. L. 1981a. Hazard analysis critical control point approach:
Epidemiologic rationale and application to foodservice operations.
J. Environ. Health 44:7-14.

Bryan, F. L. 1981b. Hazard analysis of food service operations. Food
Technol. 35:78-87.

Bryan, F. L., and T. W. McKinley. 1974. Prevention of foodborne

illness by time-temperature control of thawing, cooking, chilling,
and reheating turkeys in school lunch kitchens. J. Milk Food
Technol. 37:420-429.

Bryan, F. L., and T. W. McKinley. 1979. Hazard analysis and control of
roast beef preparation in foodservice establishments. J. Food
Protect. 42:4-18.

DHEW (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). 1972.

Proceedings of the 1971 National Conference on Food Protection.
April 4-8, 1971, Denver, Colorado. Sponsored by American Public
Health Association. (FDA) 72-2015. U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Washington, B.C.

Ito, K. 1974. Microbiological critical control points in canned foods.
Food Technol. 28:46,48.

Kauffman, F. L., and R. M. Schaffner. 1974. Hazard analysis, critical
control points and good manufacturing practices regulations
(sanitation) in food plant inspections. Pp. 402-407 In Proceedings
of the IV International Congress on Food Science and Technology.
September 22-27, 1974, Madrid, Spain. Institute de Agroqulmica y
Technologia de Alimentos, Valencia, Spain.

NRC (National Research Council). 1985. An Evaluation of the Role of
Microbiological Criteria in Foods and Food Ingredients. Report of
the Subcommittee on Microbiological Criteria, Committee on Food
Protection, Food and Nutrition Board. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.

137

Peterson, A. C. , and R. E. Gunnerson. 1974* Microbiological critical
control points in frozen foods. Food Technol. 28:37-44.

Unklesbay, N. F., R. B Maxcy, M. E. Knickrehm, K. E. Stevenson, M. L.
Cremer, and M. E. Matthews. 1977. Foodservice systems: Product
flow and microbial quality and safety of foods. Research Bulletin
1018. College of Agriculture, Agriculture Experiment Station,
University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.

WHO/ICMSF (World Health Organization/International Commission on

Microbiological Specifications for Foods). 1982. Report of the
WHO/ICMSF Meeting on Hazard Analysis: Critical Control Point
System in Food Hygiene. World Health Organization, Geneva.

Zottola, E. A., and I. D. Wolfe. 1980. Recipe hazard analysis RHAS -
systematic approach to analyzing potential hazards in a recipe for
home food preparation. J. Food Protect. 44:560-564.

New Technology

Approaches to Meat and Poultry Inspection

The procedures and techniques used by the staff of the Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) have for the most part been in place for
many years. These traditional methods are used to detect zoonotic and
other animal diseases at slaughterhouses and to analyze meat and
poultry samples as part of the National Residue Program. To date, only
slight advantage appears to have been taken of electronic and
technologically advanced devices and instrumentation.

Some of the current technologies available and in use that have
proved useful in the separation and identification of deleterious
agents, both chemical and infectious, are briefly described in this
chapter. Several new technologies that are becoming useful for this
purpose are also detailed in part to illustrate for the nonscientist
the techniques that might be adapted to meat and poultry inspection,
and in part to alert policymakers to the potential for improvement.
Physical methods, particularly imaging techniques, are considered, for
some of them could have a significant and direct impact on the
inspection process. Finally, the considerable advantage of using
computer-based information systems is discussed.

SEPAEATIQN AND IDENTIFICATION METHODS
Current Technologies

Thin-Layer Chromatography (TLC). This method, developed in the
1930s, is widely used because of its speed, low cost, and ease of
adaptation to a variety of laboratory conditions. The principles
involved in TLC include the adsorption of test compounds onto a thin
layer of adsorbent and the selective solubility of the test compounds
in solvents that are allowed to migrate through the adsorbent. TLC
results can be obtained in a short time (between 30 minutes and 2
hours) and the technique is nondestructive with regard to the test
compounds. Detection of test compounds is limited to their absorption
of ultraviolet light or by visual observations after spraying with
chromophoric reagents (Mendoza, 1981).

Gas-Liquid Chromatography (GLC). First introduced in 1952, GLC has
become the analytical methodology most closely associated with the

138

detection of chemical residues in food products. A capillary column
technology has greatly improved the resolution and sensitivity of the
GLC method* A sample is introduced into. a heated injection port,
rapidly converted to a vapor, and swept by a continuous flow of carrier
gas through the system. Sophisticated, highly selective detectors have
been developed for GLC and it is possible to rapidly resolve, identify,
and measure complex mixtures. The volatility of test compounds is
sometimes a limiting factor for GLC applications, and several of the
detectors destroy the test compound (Grob, 1977).

High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) Liquid
chromatographs that use some pressure device (such as a pump-direct
drive) for fluent mobility and are equipped with low-volume detectors
are described as high-performance liquid chromatographs. Basically,
HPLC is TLC in a pressurized system; solvents that will affect the
separation of test compounds on TLC plates are also used in HPLC.
Since the early 1970s, the use of HPLC has grown rapidly, based on the
development of specific detectors and column packing materials.
Compounds do not need to be in a vapor phase for HPLC, and they can be
recovered from the column effluent for conformation analyses. HPLC is
currently one of the more widely used analytical techniques (Hanks and
Colvin, 1981).

Ultraviolet, Infrared, and Atomic Absorption Spec trophotome try.
Analytical techniques in this grouping are designed to use quantized
energy changes that occur when electromagnetic energy (a photon) is
absorbed by molecules or atoms. In general, these procedures take
advantage of one or more of the three energy levels that exist in
molecules (electronic, vibrational, or rotational). Ultraviolet and
infrared spectrophotometry is applicable to functional or resonating
groups in organic or biological molecules and does not destroy the test
compound. Atomic absorption uses high temperatures to excite atoms of
metals and metalloids, which in turn absorb light energy. Atomic
absorption spectrophotometry destroys the test sample. Modern
spectrophotometric instrumentation contains a primary light source, a
precise monochromator to isolate a specific wave length, a sensitive
detector to measure the light, and electronics to receive the signal
and display the results (response) (Holmes and Reddy, 1981b).

Mass Spectrometry (MS) and Interfaced Instrumentation. Mass
spectrometry (MS) involves the fate of gaseous molecules under reduced
pressure conditions. In MS, a test compound is introduced into an
ionizing chamber that is under high vacuum conditions, heated until it
becomes gaseous, and then bombarded by high-energy electrons. The test
compound is thereby fragmented into a series of lower-molecular-weight
ions. These positively charged ions are then separated, collected, and
displayed according to their mass. MS has become a versatile and
sensitive tool in the analysis of chemical residues and pollutants. It
is, however, somewhat expensive with regard to both initial and
operating costs. The mass spectrum of a test compound is perhaps the
ultimate residue identification technique (Safe and Boyd, 1981).

The primary limitation of MS is that positive identification of an
unknown compound, on the basis of its mass spectrum, can be made only
with pure compounds* Thus the application of MS to food and chemical
residues requires sophisticated separation techniques to remove
impurities that are extracted at the same time as the test compound
from complex biological matrixes * GLC and HPLC, the most effective
separation techniques, have both been used with the ionization chamber
of mass spectrometers* Similarly, GLC has been combined with thermal
energy analyzers as interfaced instrumentation and is the analytical
technique used by the meat and poultry inspection service for the
detection of nitroso compounds*

Radioimmunoassay. This methodology has been closely associated
with hormone studies, but the principles involved can be applied to a
wide variety of antigenic substances. To determine the concentration
of any antigen, a source of the antigen that contains a radiolabel is
needed. The test compound, the labeled test compound, and the antibody
to the test compound are allowed to equilibrate in a series of tubes.
The antigen-antibody complex is separated and the radioactivity is
measured. Instrumentation for measuring radioactivity is a necessary
part of this technique (Metzler, 1977).

Direct and Indirect Fluorescence Antibody Techniques. The direct
fluorescence antibody technique is a much simpler test than the
indirect procedure just described. The direct procedure consists of
labeling the test antibody with a fluorescent dye (usually fluorescein
isothiocyanate) and applying the labeled antibody to the antigen, which
is fixed on microscope slides. After the system has reached
equilibrium, the excess antibody is washed away and the preparation is
examined with a fluorescence microscope. In indirect fluorescence, the
unlabeled antibody produced in a rabbit, for example, plays a dual
role. It forms an unlabeled product in the primary antigen-antibody
reaction, but it is also used as an antigen in a second animal (a
sheep, for example). The resulting sheep anti-immunoglobulin is
labeled with a fluorescent dye. This labeled material is then directed
toward the initial unlabeled product and viewed under the microscope.
Such techniques are used primarily as diagnostic tests in parasitology,
bacteriology, virology, and mycology (Cherry it al . , 1960). Several
immunoassay procedures were developed recently for specific pesticide
residues (Schwalbe e al . , 1984; Vallejo t al . , 1982; Wie and Hammock,
1982).

New Technologies

Recent advances in biotechnology have provided an increased ability
to utilize and direct microorganisms to produce specific compounds.
Furthermore, these approaches can be used to identify with high
specificity infectious agents by means unheard of just 5 to 10 years
ago.

Recombinant DNA. Gene splicing (recombinant DNA technology) which
has been described as the most important emerging technology of the

1980s involves the manipulation and control of the intricate chemical
reactions a cell uses to synthesize new cellular parts. Recombinant
DNA molecules (spliced genes) consist of DNA fragments from two
different species that have been joined together. The splicing is
accomplished by highly selective enzymes. The new, hybrid DNA is
inserted into a host cell (a process called transformation), and when
this cell divides, a copy of the hybrid DNA is passed along to its
daughter cells. If the new gene is "expressed, 11 each daughter cell
will begin producing a new protein. Most recombinant DNA research has
focused on applying the technology to Pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and
chemicals (Gilbert and Taunton-Rigby, 1984).

The technology has been used extensively in recent years to develop
several bioprobes, including DNA probes. DNA probes (small pieces of
DNA that recognize specific genes) can be used to identify the genetic
information of any organism. This provides a powerful tool for
diagnostic purposes because it offers a high degree of specificity,
sensitivity, and accuracy and can be applied to a variety of formats.
The ability of avidin to bind firmly to biotin, for example, is used in
developing bioprobes that utilize a biotinylated derivative of
deoxyuridine triphosphate in the place of thymidine triphosphate in
several DNA-labeling reactions (Langer et. al . , 1981). The resulting
bioprobes hybridize normally to complementary DNA. The bioprobes are
chemically stable and have shelf lives in excess of a year. Some of
these probes are now being commercially developed into ready-to-use
kits for the detection and identification of specific infections.

Monoclonal Antibody Technology (Hybridomas) . Recognizing and
removing foreign substances (antigens) from the bodies of higher
animals involves a complex series of events called the immune
response. When a foreign substance is recognized, the body ^produces ^ a
product (antibody) specifically designed to bind to the antigen. This
specific and unique binding of antigen to antibody is the basis for
detecting and diagnosing many diseases. Antibodies produced by
conventional methods are polyvalent, containing a mixture of antibodies
directed against different regions of the antigen (OTA, 1984).

In the production of monoclonal antibodies (MABs), a mouse and an^
antibody-producing tumor (myeloma) play important roles. An antigen is
injected into a mouse to elicit an immune response. Antibody-producing
cells, growing in tissue culture, are then fused with the
B-lymphocytes. The fusion products that survive contain genes from the
antibody-producing cells and are called hybridomas. Hybridomas are
cloned and screened for their antibody production and are used to
produce MABs in large quantities. The antibodies produced by this
technology are homogeneous and monospecific, i.e., they react with a
specific region of the antigen. The hybridoma-monoclonal antibody
technique can also yield a specific antibody directed against a single
antigen even when a mixture of antigens, such as an impure protein
preparation, is injected into the mouse.

Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) ELISA, sometimes called
the "double antibody sandwich 11 technique, is used to detect and measure
antigens or antibodies* Several procedural variations of this
technology have been used for the last decade ELISA is mentioned here
as an emerging technology in view of the added diagnostic specificity
and potential applications available when MABs are used in the process
(Finegold and Martin, 1982) .

In one type of ELISA, the antigen (such as a virus or bacteria) is
immobilized in wells formed in a plastic plate . This is done in an
alkaline buffer (pH of 9.0) and remains attached throughout the
manipulations at a near neutral pH. A specific antibody is then added,
and it forms a tight complex with the immobilized antigen. The excess
antibody is removed; this is followed by the addition of an antibody
produced against the initial antibody. Covalently linked to the second
antibody is an enzyme (horseradish peroxidase or alkaline
phosphatase). The removal of the excess second antibody is followed by
the addition of reagents that produce a color through enzymatic
action. Color production above the control wells indicates the
presence of an antibody and the amount of color is directly related to
the quantity of antigen under consideration.

Unlike radioimmunoassays, the handling, counting, and disposal of
radionuclides are not required, and there is no need for specially
designated radiation laboratories. The ELISA technique has been used
recently as a diagnostic tool in the food and agricultural markets.
Under development are applications for detecting brucellosis in cattle
(serum and milk), salmonellosis in dairy cattle, and toxoplasmosis in
pork (N.C. Vail, Idetek Inc., personal communication, 1984). The
technique has also been successfully used to detect minute quantities
of mycotoxins such as aflatoxin M^ at the parts per trillion level
(Fremy and Chu, 1984).

IMAGING TECHNIQUES

A number of technological developments involving physical methods
of diagnosis in human and veterinary medicine have considerable
potential for application within FSIS. Taken together, these could
prove to be almost as important in the diagnosis of certain diseases as
the introduction of the x ray was in the first quarter of this
century. The new methods include improved x-ray techniques,
ultrasound, nuclear magnetic resonance, and computerized methods for
image collection and comparison to an established normal baseline.

Nonphotographic Visualization of X-ray Images

Although conventional x rays remain a useful diagnostic technique,
they are expensive and can be hazardous. This well-established
technology has been improved by recent developments in electronics and
imaging and by application of computer technology. One example is the

electronic amplification of x-ray images, which allows a reduction in
exposure to radiation, the capturing of the image on digital imaging
equipment, and the storage of the captured image on magnetic tape. The
images are subjected to computer-assisted interpretation. These
changes have reduced radiation hazards, eliminated expensive silver
halide film, and permitted enlargement of selected areas of interest by
amplification.

The addition of computer technology to diagnostic procedures has
permitted the development of new and novel approaches to old problems.
The data are generated in a form that can be readily transmitted to
distant facilities for interpretation, collation, and storage with a
speed and accuracy unimaginable earlier.

X-ray Visualization by Digital Subtraction Methods

This technique uses a preliminary x-ray image that is converted to
an electronic signal stored on magnetic tape. The stored image is then
used for electronic comparison to a subsequent contrast anglograph, and
the initial image is erased electronically. As a result, the blood
vessels appear in the final picture as the naked vascular tree, and
visual interference by nonvascular structures is eliminated. The
clean, simple image is easy to interpret, and the required dose of
contrast material is greatly reduced. Electronic amplification of the
signal permits low-dose x-ray exposure even with repeated studies.
Because of the electronic nature of the image, the observer can look at
the vascular structures from other angles without taking new x rays.

Although this technology may seem remote from the needs of FSIS, if
the principles involved are properly understood and applied they may
offer a new approach to the problem of repetitive inspection of objects
with a low frequency of abnormal findings. For example, some organs
might be routinely examined for abnormalities such as tumors or
abscesses. A computerized image of a normal organ could be used as a
standard for either x-ray or ultrasound examination. This would reduce
the need for hand palpation of normal organs, allow faster processing,
and reduce the need for personnel committed to a dull job.

Ultrasound

Ultrasound equipment for diagnosis has been available for about two
decades, but it did not become clinically useful until the general
development of electronics and of compact equipment that uses only
small amounts of energy (Stouffer and Westervelt, 1977). Ultrasound
can detect differences in density in tissue and fluids, measure depth,
observe contours, and detect motion. It is not hazardous and is much
cheaper than many other diagnostic instruments . It can be operated to
provide three-dimensional images. Computerization allows both visual
and nonvisual interpretation of data, and computer-assisted
interpretation is possible. Because ultrasound does not penetrate
solids, its clinical use in evaluating abnormalities of the lung,

144

brain a or other bone-covered organs has been limited* In the animal
carcass, however, images of soft tissue in these areas can be obtained
since overlying solid structures can be removed

Ultrasonic imaging techniques were originally applied to detect
abnormalities of soft tissue . A recent technological breakthrough with
real-time ultrasound has permitted instantaneous, accurate
cross-sectional images that can be read and analyzed by computers .
This technology can be applied to the postmortem inspection of meat and
poultry carcasses and organs. The detection of abscesses without the
incision of intact livers and other organs at the rate of several
hundred per hour would save labor and valuable products and would
improve the effectiveness of meat inspection. Intact carcasses on
moving chains could be scanned with real-time ultrasound for such
abnormalities as infected lymph glands; abscesses in hams, jowls, or
other locations; and liver flukes in bile ducts* Applying this
technology to meat inspection might improve efficiency, reduce public
health risk, and be cost effective. Recently, this method has been
used for evaluation of beef carcasses (Cross e^t aJL. , 1983)*

Ultrasound could be effective in detecting metallic particles
(ferrous or nonferrous), bone spicules, or glass or plastic particles
in meat and meat products prior to packing or even after the meat has
been placed in containers* This kind of detection program might be
partially or fully automated.

Computer-Assisted Axial Tomography (CAT)

CAT scanning has revolutionalized body and head imaging in human
diagnostic medicine. It can provide a three-dimensional image of the
whole subject, showing bone or major organ disease or displacement by
disease. It is expensive and not readily amenable to automation, at
least at the moment. It could be valuable in the future, however, if
the special needs of FSIS were considered in the design of new
instruments.

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR)

An even newer imaging technique is nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)
or magnetic resonance. The development of NMR imaging spectrometers in
recent years made it possible to apply imaging technique to whole live
animals or parts. It does not use radiation, can visualize abnormal
concentrations of enzymes, fluids, or organ contents, and is not
affected by bone or nonferrous covering. Moreover, abnormalities in
tissues or organs and lesions can be detected by this technique. It is
currently extremely expensive, and many phases are still in the
developmental stages, but it clearly holds potential for improving meat
and poultry inspection procedures (Wilson, 1981).

ROBOTICS

The Tin Man from The Wizard of Oz and, more recently , C3PO and R2D2
from the film Star Wars are perhaps our most well known robots. Some
20,000 industrial robots were produced in 1983* Today they consist of
an arm, hand, small brain (computer), and sometimes an eye* The eye
uses reflected light to recognize, sort, and pick out objects according
to size and shape* Most industrial robots are manufactured in Japan
and are used extensively for welding in the production of automobiles
and heavy equipment. The electronics industry also makes considerable
use of robots. Today, the ability to produce robots with larger brains
(computer components) is much greater than that of producing the
mechanical features. As these technologies merge, the economical
potential for the commercial exploitation of robots appears unlimited
(Fredkin, 1984). In the meat and poultry industry, assembly-line type
of robots could be employed when appropriate sensory devices are
developed to replace organoleptic techniques.

COMPUTER AUTOMATION: DATA GATHERING, PROCESSING, AND DISTRIBUTION

FSIS's responsibility stretches from a central administrative group
in Washington, B.C., to the on-line field inspectors in slaughter and
processing plants throughout the country. Data and information must
flow in both directions. Directives from administrators must reach the
various subordinate levels while data, queries, and other forms of
information should pass from the field back up the administrative
ladder to the appropriate office. This feedback of data and
information to central points is essential for monitoring the
efficiency and effectiveness of the nation's meat and poultry
inspection programs. Such information is also required for determining
changes in current and future policies and for developing directives
and memoranda for the field offices and inspectors.

Computer-Based Information Systems

Decisions can only be as good as the data and information on which
they are based. And conclusions drawn from statistical analyses of
monitoring and surveillance data are only as good as the correctness of
the information fed into the system and the availability and
accessibility of data. The automated computer-based information
systems now widely used in the industrial world are immeasurably
facilitating the rapid collection of high-quality data. Computer
terminals at strategic locations that use programs with well-defined
terminologies and data-input control features in conjunction with
computer-mail capability can reduce the chance of error in the transfer
of data and information* Computer compilation of monitoring and
surveillance data, in the appropriate form, provides a ready source of
information for regulatory decisions and legal actions. It could also
identify problematic field inspection operations and monitor plants and
slaughterhouses with respect to procedures, facilities, and violations.

FSIS is giving some attention to incorporating automated
computer-based information systems in its operation (USDA, 1983)* The
Mathematics and Statistics Division of the Science Program , for
example, intends to upgrade the Microbiological and Residue Computer
Information System (MARCIS) and convert the information systems of
accredited analytical laboratories to MARCIS

The Field Services Laboratory Division analyzes samples for
chemical residues, food additives , nutritional values, contamination
with microorganisms, and parasites . The data generated cover 38,000
residue samples and 95,000 nonresidue samples analyzed in FSIS field
laboratories. Additional samples are analyzed through contracts with
non-FSIS laboratories. With appropriate instrumentation and more
data-transfer capability, the results of field laboratory analyses
could be transmitted by computer mail (with onsite hard-copy
capability) to field inspectors and central administrative offices.
Computer mail is preferable to telephone conversations because of a
decreased possibility of error.

Automated Laboratory Methods

The use of automation in the analysis of samples lies at the heart
of most medical laboratories. Many businesses have been launched in
recent years to develop and market automated analytical equipment and
procedures. Routine analyses, such as for protein and other components
of food and feeds, using traditional "by-hand" analytical procedures
are prone to considerable error the degree of error depending on the
expertise, experience, and day-to-day motivation of each laboratory
technician. Automation in laboratory analysis, though not without
potential problems and requiring adequately trained personnel,
constitutes a considerable advantage. Correctly installed and
operated, there is less chance for error and the data can be fed
directly into a computer-based information transfer system. FSIS is
now considering the cost of installing, maintaining, and operating
automated equipment.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The committee recognizes that FSIS has introduced some new
technologies into its programs, as committee members observed during
site visits to the regional field laboratories in Georgia, Missouri,
and California. Furthermore, FSIS plans to use more advanced
technologies in other segments of its total inspection program. One
primary example is the Live Animal Swab Test (LAST), which is being
used on the farm to test bovine urine for antibiotic residues. This
type of farm testing could well become a required initial screening
procedure for all meat and poultry inspection. Several emerging
biotechnologies (DNA probes and monoclonal antibodies) lend themselves
to this. Prepackaged tests in the form of simple reagent kits or
impregnated ELISA-card tests are currently available and routinely used

for diagnostic purposes Identifying potential residues and infectious
diseases on the farm is a far more reasonable inspection process than
allowing these animals into slaughtering facilities, a point that comes
through clearly in the FSIS Program Plan for 1984 (USDA, 1983) *

The committee notes that the techniques with the greatest possible
future impact on FSIS procedures appear to be imaging technologies,
state~of-the-science computer-assisted information transfer, and
automated laboratory methods for analyses and quantitation. Imaging
techniques appear to have considerable potential for future impact on
the traditional antemortem and postmortem segments of meat and poultry
inspection. Computer-assisted ultrasound seems particularly well
suited to these phases, and its use should be investigated as an
alternative to visual and physical examination of cervical and
mesenteric lymph nodes. Detecting bone fragments or other dense
materials that may occur in processed meat products is also amenable to
imaging methods.

The technologies discussed in this chapter can assist FSIS to
establish a modern, technology-based system capable of safely screening
a large number of apparently acceptable products in order to identify a
small number of unacceptable ones* The recommendations that follow are
offered with that broader goal in mind.

The committee recommends that FSIS directly manage an in-house
and out-of-house research program relevant to its mission.

The committee recommends that FSIS establish a science advisory
committee composed of representatives from government, industry,
academia, and research organizations and that the agency continuously
use the expertise of this group.

The committee suggests that FSIS use a computer-assisted system
extensively for inspection and for the acquisition, transfer, analysis,
and wider dissemination of data on meat-borne hazards.

The committee suggests that FSIS rapidly develop a more efficient
automated laboratory analysis system. New automated methods could be
introduced into onsite and Field Service Laboratories without extensive
training of personnel. Consideration, however, must be given to the
level of FSIS operation at which automated analytical equipment would
be advantageous.

REFERENCES

Cherry, W. B., M. Goldman, and T. R. Carski. 1960. Fluorescent
antibody techniques in the diagnosis of communicable diseases.
Public Health Service Publication No. 729. Communicable Disease
Center, Bureau of State Services, Public Health Service, U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Atlanta, Georgia.

Cross, H. R., D A. Gilliland, P. R. Durland, and S. Seideman. 1983.
Beef carcass evaluation by use of a view image analysis system* J,
Aninu Sci, 57:908-917.

Finegold, S. M. 3 and W. J, Mart in * 1982 Antigen-antibody

determinations on patients 1 sera* Pp. 571-583 in Diagnostic
Microbiology, Sixth edition* C V. Mosby, St. Louis*

Fredkin, E. 1984. Robotics* Research and Development 26: 242-249

Fremy, J. M., and F S. Chu. 1984 Direct enzyme-linked immunosorbent
assay for determining aflatoxin MI at picogram levels in dairy
products. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chenu 67:1098-1101.

Gilbert,, W. , and A* Taunt on-Rigby. 1984* Gene splicing. Research and
Development 26:176-181.

Grob 3 R. L., ed. 1977. Modern Practice of Gas Chromatography. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.

Hanks 3 A. R. 4 and B. M. Colvin. 1981. High-performance liquid

Chromatography* Pp. 99-174 in K. G. Das, ed Pesticide Analysis.
Marcel Dekker, New York.

Holmes, M. G., and G. S. Reddy. 1981a. Infrared spectrophotometry.
Pp. 231-261 in K. G. Das, ed. Pesticide Analysis. Marcel Dekker,
New York.

Holmes, M. G., and G. S. Reddy. 1981b. Ultraviolet spectophotometry.
Pp. 203-229 in K. G. Das, ed. Pesticide Analysis. Marcel Dekker,
New York.

Kolata, G. 1985. Testing for trichinosis. Science 227:621, 624.

Langer, P. R. , A. A. Waldrop, and D. C. Ward. 1981. Enzymatic

synthesis of biotin-labeled polynucleotides : Novel nucleic acid
affinity probes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 78:6633-6637.

Mendoza, C. E. 1981. Thin-layer Chromatography. Pp. 1-44 in K. G.
Das, ed. Pesticide Analysis. Marcel Dekker, New York.

Metzler, D. E. 1977. Biochemistry: The Chemical Reaction of
Living Cells. Academic Press, New York.

OTA (Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress). 1984. Commercia
Biotechnology: An International Analysis. OTA-BA-218. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Safe, S. H., and R. K. Boyd. 1981. Mass spectrometry. Pp. 329-368 in
K. G. Das, ed. Pesticide Analysis. Marcel Dekker, New York.

149

Schwalbe, M. , E. Dorn, and K. Beyermann. 1984. Enzyme immunoassay and
fluoroimraunoassay for the herbicide diclof op-methyl. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 32:734-741.

Stouffer, J. R., and R. G. Westervelt. 1977. A review of ultrasonic
applications in animal science. J. Clin. Ultrasound 5:124-128.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1983. Food Safety and

Inspection Service Program Plan; Fiscal Year 1984. Food Safety and
Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1984. Briefing Book. Prepared
for the Committee to Evaluate the Scientific Basis of the Nation's
Meat and Poultry Inspection Program, Food and Nutrition Board,
National Research Council, February 16, 1984. Food Safety and
Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Vallejo, R. P., E. R. Bogus, and R. 0. Mumma. 1982. Effects of hapten
structure and bridging groups on antisera specificity in parathion
immunoassay development. J. Agric. Food Chem. 30:572-580.

Wie, S. I., and B. D. Hammock. 1982. Development of enzyme-linked

immunosorbent assays for residue analysis of diflubenzuron and BAY
SIR 8514. J. Agric. Food Chem. 30:949-957.

Wilson, N. K. 1981. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Pp.

263-328 in K. G. Das, ed. Pesticide Analysis. Marcel Dekker, New
York.

New Directions for Decision Making
in Meat and Poultry Inspection

Evidence Required for Quantitative
Health Risk Assessment

The committee was asked to examine the scientific foundation for
the meat and poultry inspection program in the United States 3 to look
at different inspection strategies 3 and to consider the role of
technological development as it affects these strategies. Yet early in
its deliberations the committee noted that its efforts would be of more
value to the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and to the public if they were placed
in the context of an effort broader than the mission of FSIS. The
success of FSIS in dealing with the gross disease and contamination
problems that it was established to address creates an opportunity for
the agency to give more attention to newer challenges using open,
rational j structured decision-making processes and updated scientific
methods .

This final chapter presents the committee's consideration of the
characteristics 3 from a scientific perspective , of an optimal meat and
poultry inspection program; new, more structured ways to analyze FSIS
problems and to develop policy from factual evaluations; and a
comprehensive set of steps that the entire federal government not just
FSIS needs to take to ensure the existence of a meat and poultry
inspection system that justifies continuing public support.

The reconsideration of the scientific and technical role and
procedures of FSIS suggested herein must and can be done by the agency
itself 3 although with substantial outside participation from persons
with a broader range of skills in diverse disciplines ranging from
management to law, from economics to human behavior.

AN OPTIMAL MEAT AND POULTRY INSPECTION PROGRAM

In evaluating the current U.S. meat and poultry inspection program,
the committee noted the absence of objectives stated in a form that
could be used by FSIS to measure its success in protecting the public
health. In light of the committee's recommendation for a new
decision-making system at the agency, it is important to set out
initially the characteristics of a system that would adequately protect

150

the American public. Once reasonable objectives have been defined., a
program for action can be modified as needed, and progress toward the
objectives can be assessed.

As budgeting constraints, technologies , and industry economics
change, new kinds of inspection techniques and systems with various
mixes of industry inspection and certification need to be identified,
defined, and tested. Ideally, new approaches to inspection should not
be implemented nationally until they have been validated by objective
assessments of their health impact or until their continuing health
impact after adoption can be evaluated against some reasonably
objective criteria. This development of criteria, or even of proxy
criteria, is a prerequisite to setting any new objectives for FSIS. If
continuing research, development, testing, and evaluation of new
methods become a hallmark of the agency, the public can continue to
have confidence in changes introduced at the initiative of FSIS.

Beyond this devotion to the development of objective measures, an
optimal meat and poultry inspection program should have the following
characteristics, many of which are already a part of FSIS policy:

A trace-back and recall system from producer to final sale for
all animals and products destined to enter the human food supply, both
to produce epidemiological data based on animals that are important for
the prevention of human disease and to enhance the ability of
processors and the government to respond to problems in the food chain
as they occur.

The maximum use of producer or processor certification

of product compliance with all critical regulations, consistent with
established good manufacturing practices in food processing and with
adequate governmental oversight. An industry that is fundamentally
responsible for its own compliance will in time learn to encourage the
development and application of new technology, responsible and
accountable personnel, and a cost-effective implementation of food
safety regulations. The committee notes that the present role of FSIS
in effect relieves producers of many important responsibilities that
they would otherwise have to shoulder. Furthermore, the current
intensive inspection by FSIS actively discourages the development of an
industry-wide ethic that producers and processors must be responsible
for the quality of their own products. Marginal processors, currently
the source of most detected problems (USDA, 1984a), are largely
protected by a public perception that governmental inspection is fully
effective.

Adequate technical support for inspection operations from a team
of qualified personnel, including substantial emphasis on veterinary
medicine, food science, public health, food engineering, food
technology, epidemiology, pathology, toxicology, microbiology, animal
science, risk analysis, systems analysis, statistics, computer science,
and economics. Similarly, managers should have expertise in several

relevant disciplines, including veterinary medicine, food science and
technology, nutrition, public health, and public management; no one
discipline should dominate.

An inspection system in which the intensity of inspection
depends on a variety of factors, including the risks involved in
specific processes, the reliability of the monitoring system, the
compliance history of the plant, and the special needs of the intended
consumer (e.g, military personnel and schoolchildren). Where
inspection is less than continuous, it should be unpredictable (i.e.,
effectively random).

A list of the diseases that can be identified by each step in
the inspection procedure. A determination should then be made about
whether the steps are: (1) useful for human health purposes either by
detecting infections or residues that can be transmitted to humans or
by maintaining basic levels of food hygiene; (2) useful for animal
health purposes, for the surveillance and control of diseases
transmitted between animals during production or by other means; (3)
useful for detecting aesthetically objectionable conditions; (4)
necessary to prevent fraud of consumers; or (5) able to provide other
identifiable benefits. Classifying the steps in the inspection process
in this way would help FSIS identify efforts that are redundant or that
could for other reasons be eliminated without increasing risks to human
health. It would also identify areas in which FSIS needs to give more
attention to diseases of major importance to human health, as well as
opportunities to use data on meat inspection for surveillance of animal
diseases.

A random sampling system to test retained or condemned carcasses
and parts of carcasses in order to establish and report definitive
diagnoses that can be used to control and prevent future hazards. The
sampling system should include pathology correlation sessions as part
of continuing education, so it would have an educational as well as
surveillance function.

Rapid, inexpensive screening tests to detect a broad array of
hazardous chemical compounds and biological products that may be
hazardous to the consumer.

An adequate sampling plan, designed to protect the consumer, for
chemicals that are not randomly distributed across the entire country.

An emphasis on hazard analysis critical control points in
production, slaughter, processing, and distribution, with more limited
inspection in selected processing areas within plants where the
historic yield of violations is low and where public health risks are
negligible.

The documented assurance, backed by substantial compliance
enforcement, of the sanitary wholesomeness of all meat and poultry
products.

153

The enforcement capability to impose a broad range of penalties
upon violators, including the withdrawal of inspection. The penalties
must be sufficient to ensure voluntary compliance by plants and be
readily tailored to deal with specific kinds of problems.

Adequate resources to ensure the development of new inspection
technologies that will reduce cross-contamination of carcasses, to
develop new techniques, to undertake toxicological assessments, and in
general to continue improving the technological base of the agency.

A mandatory system of initial and continuing education for
inspection personnel that emphasizes food science, food technology,
pathology, and public health. Such a system should also ensure that
all inspection personnel be recertified on a continuing basis to ensure
continued competence.

An augmented scientific and technical FSIS staff who have a
considerable consultative role in the development of policy.

The presence of standing advisory panels composed primarily of
outside experts to provide consultation on both policy and practice
regarding meat and poultry safety. Although such panels might best be
organized along problem lines, each must be multidisciplinary. Some of
the relevant disciplines are food science and technology, computer
applications, microbiology, biostatistics , epidemiology, veterinary
medicine, toxicology, systems analysis, animal health, economics,
marketing, nutrition, and risk analysis. No one discipline should
dominate any panel. All major regulatory proposals should be reviewed
by appropriate standing advisory panels prior to finalization.

Strong liaison with other relevant animal-health agencies of the
federal, state, and local governments, so that FSIS has sufficient and
current knowledge of hazards emerging in the food supply.

Substantial use of a rapid, timely, and flexible system to
acquire, transfer, analyze, and make more widely available data related
to inspection and to meat-borne hazards. Such a system is likely to be
computer-based .

An ideal meat and poultry inspection system will ensure that
adequate public protection measures are located throughout the food
system, from animal production to the final sale of the food product.
The best system would also encourage individual consumer responsibility
for food safety through effective education programs aimed at the
general public, beginning with the school-aged population. Finally,
and perhaps most importantly in the context of the charge to this
committee, the allocation of food inspection resources should be based
on an evaluation of degrees of public health hazard and on the
availability of cost-effective methodologies to eliminate or control
these risks.

IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING RISK THROUGH QUANTITATIVE HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT

The committee was concerned about two key measures that are missing
from the present FSIS approach to inspection: a comprehensive
assessment of the kinds of public health hazards that face -the agency
and the American public, and objective criteria to determine whether
identified problems are being appropriately and successfully
addressed. One of the major justifications for the inspection of meat
and poultry is the need to protect human health* The committee could
find 3 however 3 no comprehensive quantitative technical analyses of the
hazards to human health of specific agents or of the benefits that
would follow the adoption of new techniques. Examples of the new
approaches include methods of inspecting the slaughter of poultry, the
voluntary quality control system, and the testing for pesticide
residues on a sampling basis. Without any formal assessments that
compare the risks being attacked with the residual risk after control
programs are implemented, the committee was unable to evaluate
adequately whether these new programs are beneficial to the public or
whether the agency has allocated sufficient and appropriate resources
to them.

As mentioned earlier, the establishment of reasonable, measurable
objectives for the nation's meat and poultry inspection program is
imperative. To that end, the committee recommends the adoption of
quantitative health risk assessment, which it believes will aid FSIS in
improving its program and achieving specific objectives. Quantitative
health risk assessment has most recently been discussed in connection
with toxic substances (NRG, 1980), yet its roots go much deeper than
that, into areas as diverse as transportation, national security
policy, and business decision making (NRG, 1983). Although specific
elements of this analytical tool may have to be adjusted to the meat
and poultry inspection process, the concept is universal. Indeed, its
application in food inspection and regulation is already much discussed
in relation to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The courts,
including the Supreme Court, have indicated their willingness to accept
the notion of quantitative health risk assessment in the context of
indirect food additives (Monsanto v. Kennedy , 1979; Scott v* FDA, 1984),

The Elements of Risk Assessment

Risk assessment is part of the larger discipline of decision
analysis. In the context of federal health and safety regulatory
programs, it forms a basis for other kinds of decision analysis.
Whether using cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-benefit analysis, or
other forms of policy analysis that attempt to quantify elements of the
decision-making process, health risk assessment must form part of the
equation. The emerging discipline of risk assessment (NRC, 1983) has a
language of its own that can be reduced to the following four
elements: hazard or problem identification, exposure assessment,
hazard assessment, and quantitative health risk assessment. Each

merits some discussion in the context of meat and poultry inspection.
The comments here follow the National Research Council report in
principle, with minor modifications.

Hazard or Problem Identification. The most important first step in
any risk analysis is the identification of the hazard or problem. For
meat and poultry inspection, this entails identifying precisely the
kinds of public health problems FSIS continues to face. With regard to
poultry inspection, for example, it is vital to know which diseases or
conditions are important to detect and which are trivial. Which
inspection procedures relate in what degree to which diseases or
conditions being sought? The problems must be broken down into
operational components, into issues that can be managed by FSIS and for
which some objective data exist or can be developed.

Exposure Assessment. After the problems FSIS is to address have
been adequately identified and characterized, it is critical to
determine their likely magnitude. How many and what kinds of
people the very young and the very old, for example, and other
possibly sensitive populations are likely to be exposed to components
of a problem or to particular levels of toxic substances? The
statistical distribution of exposures must be estimated, at least
roughly, because average exposures may have little relevance for
persons who are unusually sensitive or highly exposed. The range of
exposures at the time of consumption may be especially important. For
example, trichina larvae in pork may theoretically be a major public
health problem inasmuch as organisms still exist in some proportion of
pork on the market. Yet if prior campaigns have led producers to avoid
hazardous hog-feeding practices and have led the public to cook pork
products thoroughly, then the exposure to risk may be too small to
warrant further action. In some cases, however Salmonella may be
one FSIS simply lacks definitive evidence on which to make an adequate
exposure assessment. This second step in the risk assessment process
would identify these critical gaps in the data.

Hazard Assessment. The third step is a quantitative estimation of
what happens, or what might happen, under certain kinds and levels of
exposure. In statistical terms, this is a study of conditional
probabilities: If a human population receives a certain statistical
distribution of exposures, then what is the probability of one or
another set of health effects? Hazard assessment is basically a
generic term for the concept in toxicology of developing a
dose-response relationship. It attempts to define the effects of
exposing a human population of a specified size to particular levels of
an identified risk, including the approximate distribution of high and
low exposures as well as the approximate proportion of sensitive and
resistant persons. Hazard assessment includes the study of how
sensitive the analysis is to different assumptions and how much
uncertainty about information can be tolerated, given the potential
health effects of the condition under consideration.

Quantitative Health Risk Assessment* The last step is the
integration and interpretation of the preceding three steps to
evaluate the overall consequences imposed by exposure to a particular
agent under a particular set of circumstances.

In theory, by using this model across a variety of problems FSIS
would produce a set of quantitative assessments that could be directly
compared, so that current programs could be evaluated and resource
allocation could be improved. In practice, risk assessment is an
evolving science, in which a variety of information should be given
both to the decision maker and to the public before action is
taken, including a best estimate of risk, bounded by statistical
confidence limits, and a broader statement concerning other kinds of
uncertainty about the risk. Common statistical tests deal only with
random error. In the real world, a whole range of uncertainties exist,
from problems concerning bias in measurements to the use of the wrong
test system.

The committee endorses the clear distinction between risk
assessment and risk management that others have proposed and developed
(NRG, 1983). Quantitative risk assessment is not designed to remove
judgment from the decision-making process, but rather to assemble and
organize the information that decision makers use (or should use). The
difficult question of how much evidence is enough must always be
addressed before taking action. Quantitative risk assessment specifies
both the state of knowledge and the uncertainties in a rigorous,
scientific fashion, so that decision makers can understand the level of
uncertainty inherent in the problem. For many policy purposes, a risk
assessment must have at least two parallel components one based on
present circumstances (a control) and one expected after some possible
change, so that effects of the change can be estimated by any
differences between the two.

Applying Risk Assessment to Meat and Poultry Inspection

FSIS already makes implicit risk assessments in deploying its
resources. The committee recommends that this process become explicit,
that the results of assessments be reviewed by appropriate expert
advisory panels, and that formal quantitative risk assessment have a
substantial and well-defined role in FSIS policy decisions that affect
human health.

The public health risk that justifies each of the inspection
program's major efforts needs to be assessed. For example, risks in
the following areas need to be identified and compared:

the human health consequences of animal production practices in
the United States,

the human health consequences of zoonotic agents in food-animals,

microbiological contamination of processed meat and poultry
products %

other problems caused by inadequate sanitation,

drug residues,

pesticide residues and environmental contaminants,

* imported versus domestically produced products in all the
above categories, and

the human health consequences of meat and poultry handling
practices subject to current FSIS jurisdiction.

Only in the presence of formal assessments such as these can the
implications of change be judged and can experiments be designed to
justify future changes. For example, if the current health risk
inherent in zoonotic diseases in poultry at slaughter is not material,
then the extent and quality of data brought to bear to justify change
in the speed of poultry lines is immaterial from a human health
perspective. If the major risks in poultry are those of contamination
by Salmonella and Campjlobacter spp., then efforts must be made to
assess how changes in inspection might have implications for Salmonella
risks. Similarly, only after a thorough quantitative health risk
assessment will it be possible to know whether the relative allocation
of resources to poultry slaughter $120 million in fiscal year 1985
(Executive Office of the President, 1985) is reasonable in comparison
with the much smaller resources devoted to residue control. If the
allocation of resources is not optimal from a health perspective, then
the analysis lays the scientific and technical base for appropriate
changes. In the interim, the committee recommends that FSIS implement
new initiatives as rapidly, but only as rapidly, as they can be
supported by the analytical approaches outlined here.

The committee urges FSIS to begin promptly to develop a formal and
open risk assessment process for all significant areas of policy
change. For example, if it wishes to change a red-meat inspection
procedure, it should undertake a risk assessment along the lines
described here and submit the results for peer review to one or more of
its own scientific panels (see above) and then to the relevant
scientific communities prior to implementation. If it wishes to bring
more plants into its voluntary quality control program, it should
likewise attempt to quantify any resulting changes in risk and
incorporate its analyses in a proposal to the scientific and public
communities. This would put the agency in a stronger position to ask
Congress for the authority and flexibility to deal with the problems
and establishments that present the greatest risks.

The committee notes that the kind of rigorous overall risk
assessment proposed here requires considerable time and resources.

Even findings that data are seriously inadequate may have much value in
delaying unjustified changes and in pinpointing needs for prompt data
development. An FSIS program of quantitative health risk assessments
would have many parallels to programs in other agencies, and their
experience might be helpful. Quantitative risk assessments are
feasible , and it appears that they could be done for a very small part
of FSIS r s current appropriation. This seems a good investment for
analyses that may lead to substantial improvements in the impact of
each dollar spent on inspection.

BUILDING TOWARD AN OPTIMAL SYSTEM
Current Cons t raint s

The first part of this chapter listed several characteristics of an
optimal meat and poultry inspection system. Substantial evidence from
FSIS, in terms of both structure and process, indicates that the
inspection program is already good in many ways.

With respect to outcome, however, neither the committee nor FSIS
knows how many diseases or infections the program has prevented. Only
rudimentary guesses can be made of the economic costs that have been
imposed or avoided. The committee's pursuit of its fundamental charge
to examine the scientific foundation of this program has been hindered
by the lack of data on major issues. It is not known, for example,
whether the nation's current online poultry inspection protects
consumers against any diseases of public health importance.

Significant problems of evaluation, therefore, plague the meat and
poultry inspection program. The situation is not unique many federal
programs face the same problems. When they are established, the
initial impetus is the requirement to take action against some
problem. Often, as in the case of FSIS, Congress prescribes the ways
in which the agencies will do their business. The necessity to inspect
every food-animal under USDA jurisdiction in contrast with the
goal-oriented system established for the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, for instance places major constraints on the system.
In particular, it requires great resources at the point of slaughter
and a line-management system that must be able to make complicated
judgments quickly. The speed of the line, the necessity to positively
inspect each product before it leaves the regulated environment of the
plant, the ethic of being on the spot with the problem these forces
and more tend to create a bias toward immediate decision making and
away from critical analysis.

This tendency is exacerbated by the very difficult job given to
USDA. The various federal meat and poultry inspection acts clearly
give USDA multiple responsibilities with respect to the food supply.
While FSIS has public health objectives, the laws also require that

USDA assist in the marketing of products and that FSIS be concerned
with aesthetic quality. For reasons that go beyond health and stretch
far back into the history of Western culture, people are concerned with
the way in which animal flesh reaches their tables. They are also
concerned that foods not be adulterated in ways unknown to or not
recognizable by the purchaser and consumer, and that food products not
contain organs or other matter not normally considered fit in U.S.
culture for human consumption.

Neither law nor history provides FSIS with any good guide on which
of these tasks health protection, market assistance, or aesthetic
control should predominate, or how conflicts should be resolved.
Consequently, the agency attempts to use a single set of programs to
achieve these many different objectives. From an analytical
perspective, it is not surprising that the result is a general
inability to measure the outcome of these programs.

On the basis of discussions with USDA personnel and a survey of
inspectors and inspection facilities, the committee believes that the
difficulty in defining the FSIS mission, combined with the necessity to
make multiple regulatory decisions, reduces the opportunity and the
incentive for a comprehensive analysis. Even if objectives could be
better defined and program officials were more cognizant of the need to
step back and evaluate methods, other constraints must also be overcome
to improve the decision process. Foremost among these are:

the tendency to continue to define health, aesthetic, or
economic objectives in terms of visible pathology, rather than
recognizing the changes that have occurred in both the makeup of the
food supply and the hazards likely to be present;

the orientation of FSIS more toward the meat and poultry
industry as its peer group than toward the broader scientific and
public policy communities; and

the lack of sufficient scientific and technical commitment from
the research components of USDA or of assistance from the university
community to help FSIS address major technical problems.

The Veterinary Medical Influence. The history of meat and poultry
inspection is, by and large, the history of the veterinary medical
community's attempt to intercept visibly diseased animals and prevent
adulteration of meat and poultry products. As pointed out in Chapter
2, the methods used in inspection are primarily those developed in
Europe during the last part of the nineteenth century. They are highly
focused on observation of gross lesions or abnormalities that would be
direct indicators or markers of disease. Sanitation was and is
considered important, of course, and sanitation has often been
emphasized in the context of ensuring that the abuses described in The
Jungle (Sinclair, 1906) do not occur.

The FSIS professional roster gives a good indication of the
agency's emphasis: The number of chemists, microbiologists, quality
assurance technicians, and other professional personnel is dwarfed by
the number of veterinarians at work in the program (USDA, 1983). This
emphasis may be compared with the description in Chapter 7 of
inspection responsibilities and strategies. It is immediately clear
that nonveterinary expertise dominates a majority of the tasks that
face FSIS in traditional processing inspection. That emphasis is even
further shifted from veterinary science per se in total quality control
and other, newer inspection strategies for processing operations.

It is clear that veterinary medical officers bring a variety of
essential skills to meat and poultry inspection. Yet the number of
FSIS professionals who have specialized skills in the design,
performance, and interpretation of analytical studies needs to be
increased if the agency is to meet its future responsibilities in light
of rapid change. In the absence of these specialized skills, it is not
surprising that FSIS has had difficulty providing its inspectors with
enough background to deal effectively with new tasks and problems, such
as toxic substances, and the principles underlying the new quality
control programs. These principles are best taught by professional
experts in such disciplines as food science and toxicology experts who
are in short supply within USDA.

The Industrial Orientation. An additional obstacle to analysis is
the peer group with which FSIS is most closely associated. Many
federal agencies have strong relationships with their industrial and
business constituencies. It is a measure of a democratic government
that it be accountable to all the people and groups it affects. For
meat and poultry inspection, the relationship to industry is
particularly close of necessity. Honest or dishonest, good compliance
record or bad, slaughterer or soup maker, every operator of an
establishment is subject to federal oversight every working day. The
potential for conflict is always present.

The close relationship with the industry FSIS has had to develop
sensitizes program officials to the effects of their program upon the
manufacturers. This is not to suggest that FSIS ignores the public
interest in the execution of its duties or that it makes decisions that
are inevitably industrially oriented. Indeed, conflict occurs at both
the plant level and the policy level.

Historically, FSIS has published many policies only in its internal
policy book, without giving the public or the scientific community a
chance to comment or fully understand new policies in depth. Nor has
the agency sponsored or encouraged active debate on the shape of its
program. FSIS seldom describes to a scientific or broader public
policy audience the underlying rationale for its decisions. In some
cases, this low level of communication with communities outside
industry can lead to inappropriate decisions that may affect public
health.

Insuf f ic lent Research Closely linked to FSIS's failure to
sufficiently broaden its view is insufficient research related to the
problems underlying meat and poultry inspection. Most investigators in
food technology and other relevant sciences find it difficult to
conduct research because of a lack of support. It is not sufficient to
develop a sophisticated apparatus for policy analysis if the data and
technology gaps are so broad that they render analysis meaningless.

The problem of implementing rapid test methodologies, for example,
has been recognized for more than a decade. As of 1984, only a few
quick tests have been developed (USDA, 1984b), although it is widely
recognized that online serological testing of animals could
dramatically reduce the need for subjective decision making that has
marked meat and poultry inspection for nearly a century. The committee
maintains that much more could have been done by now.

Given the current $805-million federal investment in research
funded by USDA (Executive Office of the President, 1985) and the major
place of meat and poultry products in the department f s programs and in
the American food supply, it would be appropriate if the USDA could
give more attention to research on problems of meat and poultry
inspection. The department urgently needs to obtain the kind of
research backup for its program that would both enhance its scientific
and public credibility and provide the technical base required for
sophisticated policy analysis. The committee suggests that FSIS, with
substantial support from USDA, develop its relations with the
scientific research community. One step toward this goal would be the
creation and use of expert panels of outside scientific advisors.
Another would be to expand FSIS encouragement and support of
investigator-initiated research proposals developed in response to
problems identified by FSIS. These problems may indicate needs for
basic as well as applied research.

A Source of Optimism: The Will to Change

Overall, several trends in FSIS have made the committee quite
optimistic about the future of the program and improvements in the
decision-making process. Through a combination of budget increases and
reallocations, the agency has taken concrete steps in the last few
years to deal with the problems of contamination in the food supply.
This demonstrated willingness and ability to reallocate priorities and
resources is important because it shows that FSIS can and will make
changes when the need is clear and the tools are available. It also
indicates that the leadership of USDA and FSIS recognizes and will deal
with the changing nature of the inspection problem.

FSIS has additionally tried to develop methods to pinpoint the
impacts of change (USDA, 1984a), even though such work has been of
limited scope and the reliability of findings is often poorly
documented. Again, however, it indicates a willingness to change
toward a more analytical system of decision making. On an

organizational level, an Office of Policy Analysis has been
established, linked through personnel changes to the Technical Services
Office that serves as a primary instrument of program change in FSIS.
Finally, FSIS has demonstrated its willingness to adopt modern food
science techniques within the limits allowed by its statutes in the
areas of processing inspection (USDA, 1984a) Although the particular
implementation of many of these new concepts was commented on elsewhere
in this reports FSIS deserves substantial credit for its willingness to
make changes and to act on the basis of scientific and technical
evidence.

In sum, the current decision-making environment for meat and
poultry inspection contains one major plus the will to change that
outweighs many of the constraints that are bound to make change
difficult.

Implementing Program Change

In other parts of this chapter, several specific changes that could
improve and expand FSIS capabilities have been considered. More
generally, however, the policy and technical infrastructure that could
bring the U.S. meat and poultry inspection program closer to the
optimal characteristics described earlier is the same as the
infrastructure required to implement a risk assessment approach to
analysis. Both require a willingness to tolerate a great diversity of
professional views in developing policy and the ability to turn outward
toward sources of broader expertise. Specifically, FSIS needs to
consider developing the following:

* Stronger connections with the research agencies in USDA and
elsewhere in the federal government. At a minimum, the Secretary of
Agriculture can help develop a more cooperative and productive
relationship with both the Agricultural Research Service and the land-
grant colleges and universities, through the Cooperative State Research
Service.

A stronger liaison with relevant animal health agencies of USDA
and between USDA and other government agencies, so that the meat and
poultry inspection program has sufficient and timely knowledge of
emerging hazards in the food supply.

* A larger and stronger cadre of professionals who are capable of
undertaking the public health and risk assessment roles identified
here. USDA will have to bolster significantly its competence in
statistics, toxicology, pathology, microbiology, and epidemiology if it
is to undertake this task itself.

Greater use of experts, both internal and external, in
practically all the disciplines that affect meat and poultry
inspection. Standing committees of experts need to be established to
which the agency will submit each nontrivial regulatory proposal in a

preliminary stage, and from which it can receive advice on the research
and technology needed.

FSIS faces a challenging future with great opportunity to implement
a program, based on quantitative health risk assessment, that will be
at least as innovative, timely, and beneficial as the historic advances
that followed the 1906 Federal Meat Inspection Act. Such progress has
become the tradition of U.S. meat and poultry inspection services. The
new tools for rational decision making are now at hand. Use of these
tools would be consistent with the traditions of innovation rooted in
the origins of FSIS. Implementation of a more rational decision-making
process in U.S. meat and poultry inspection is our generation's
obligation to the future.

REFERENCES

Executive Office of the President. 1985. Major Themes and Additional
Budget Details. 1985. Executive Office of the President, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Monsanto v. Kennedy. 613 F. 2d. 947 (D.C. Cir. 1979).

NRG (National Research Council). 1980. Problems of risk estimation.
Pp. 25-66 in Drinking Water and Health, Vol. 3. Subcommittee on
Risk Assessment, Safe Drinking Water Committee. Board on
Toxicology and Environmental Health Hazards, Assembly of Life
Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Scott v. FDA. 728 F. 2d. 322 (6th Cir. 1984).

Sinclair, Jr., U. B. 1906. The Jungle. Doubleday, New York.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1983. Veterinary Medical

Officers by Standard Job Number and by Region. Field Operations,
Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C. Computer printout.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) 1984b. The National Residue
Program. FSIS Facts. FSIS-18. Food Safety and Inspection
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Appendix

U.S. Production of Cattle, Swine,
Sheep, Chickens, and Turkeys

These tables, drawn from USDA data, provide details on the
production, slaughter, and marketing of food-animals in the United
States. Information on production by region or state is included whe
available. Most tables cover the period from 1958 through 1983.

C O I

rH CD C

e -H nd 3

B O

.-x- |> P^

J-l CD

CD u-i

4-J CD C 2

GO ffi cd PQ

o
o

/^s CO

q n

O <D

H Cd
CD O

a
cd

42 CO

^ cd

2 O XJ

^ C "^ C-i

t*-* *~> r^

O CD

o a
cd co

^ rH 4->
rH fX G
H CD

O 0)

o a

cd co

MH rH 4J

CD a a!

PQ Dd Q

H O

**-! CO
CD ^

CD O

CO -H
CD rH
> rH

8 3

rH rH

sr-^^^r^sr^tsrsj-sr-cr^sr^f^rva-

COOOCMCNICNCM

CO CO CO C"O <3" sj" *<r *<T "sf C^O CO CO CO CO CO

rH CM CM CO CM CM

rH rH rH rH rH rH

CO
00

167
TABLE A2 U.S. Beef Cow and Stocker Cattle Population, by Region, 1978 a

Region

Number
of
States

Beef Cows

Stocker Cattle

Number
(thousand)

Northeast

406

1.0

1,229

3.0

Lake

966

2.5

3,017

7.4

Corn Belt

5,985

15.5

8,354

20.5

Northern Plains

6,136

15.9

7,072

17.3

Southeast

9,925

25.7

7,161

17.6

Southwest

9,339

24.2

8,280

20.3

Mountain

4,017

10.2

3,530

8.7

Pacific

1,952

5.0

2,131

5.2

Total

38,726

100.0

40,774

100.0

a From Boykin ot_ al_. , 1980. Excludes Alaska and Hawaii,

168
ABLE A3 U.S. Cow Farms, by Herd Size and Region, 1974 a

Legion

Number
of
Farms
(thousand)

Distribution of Cow Herd

Sizes U)

1-19

20-99

100-199

200-499

500
or
More

lortheast

74.0

24.6

1.1

0.3

0.0

,ake

59.1

38.0

2.3

0.5

0.1

lorn Belt

176

44.3

51.3

3.6

0.7

0.1

lorthern Plains

122

25.9

59.2

10.6

3.8

0.5

ioutheast

189

40.4

51.3

5.8

2.1

0.4

louthwest

108

23.8

58.8

10.6

5.2

1.6

tountain

20.6

47.9

17.0

11.3

3.2

'acific

40.9

39.8

10.0

6.5

2.8

'otal

724

37.2

51.7

7.3

3.1

0.7

From Boykin et al., 1980* Excludes Alaska and Hawaii,

169
TABLE A4 U.S. Beef Cattle liaising Systems, by Region, 1976 a

Share in Region Using System (%)

Raising system

Southeast

Southwest

West

Great
Plains

North
Central

All

Cow-calf-feeder

87.0

82.1

77.2

34.2

69.9

Cow-cal f -s laugh ter

6.9

1.5

5.6

7.2

21.3

9.2

Stocker-s laughter "

1.4

0.7

1.4

1.6

30.5

8.2

Stocker-feeder

0.9

6.2

2.3

4.2

2.1

3.5

Mixed

3.8

9.5

8.6

9.8

11.9

9.2

From Boykin et^ aJ^. ^ 1980. Excludes Alaska and Hawaii.
Excluding commercial feedlots.

TABLE A5 U.S. Feedlots and Fed Cattle 3 by Feedlot Capacity, 1977'

Feedlot Capacity

Share of
Feedlots (%)

Share of
Cattle (%)

Less than

1,000 head

98.5

31.8

1,000 -

1,999

0.6

4.7

2,000 -

3,999

0.3

4.8

4,000 -

7,999

0.2

6.7

8,000 -

15,999

0.2

14.4

16,000 -

31,999

0.1

19.5

More than

32,000

0.1

18.1

a From Gee e al . 3 1979.

170

TABLE A6 Average Annual Marketings of Fed Cattle

from Selected States, 1964-1967 and 1977-1980 a

State

Fed Cattle

Marketed Annually

(thousand)

1964-1967

1977-1980

Change (%)

Texas

1,283

4,437

246

Nebraska

2,680

3,939

Kansas

1,093

3,247

197

Iowa

3,532

2,921

-17

Colorado

1,170

2,226

California

2,153

1,410

-35

Illinois

1,323

930

-30

Minnesota

757

743

-2

Oklahoma

338

721

113

Arizona

612

625

South Dakota

583

576

-1

Total

15,524

21,775

a From Van Arsdall and Nelson, 1983.

171

TABLE A7 U.S. Cattle Slaughtered under Federal Inspection, by Class,
1968-1982 a

Year

Number

(millions)

Share of Total (%) b

Steers

Cows

Heifers

Bulls
and
Stags

Steers

Cows

Heifers

Bulls
and
Stags

1968

0.5

1969

0.5

1970

0.5

1971

0.6

1972

0.6

1973

0.6

1974

0.7

1975

1.0

1976

0.9

1977

0.8

1978

0.7

1979

0.6

1980

0.7

1981

0.7

1982

0.8

a From USDA, 1983.

k Numbers may not add due to rounding,

172

a
fa
o

d
cd

cd
H
o

a
o

rH
CO

CO
<U

CO
PQ

OJ
CD

H
CO

rHl

cd
o

cd a
n v

cd c.

r4 CU
0)

d a

O LO ST O CM

ooooooooooooooo

rHrHrHrHrH

rHTHrHTHrHrHrHrH

O
4-*

a
o

173

rHO-^rvDHrHOrHVOvDVDinvDrHin

in in in in in in in <j* *si" *>r **d* in in in sr

/ s

O nd

4~)

CM a

CM CO

rHrHrHCMrHrHCMHrHrHrH

4-J

r^ r- r^ r^

4->

*^" "xf- s^f* Ln in in in sf' "sT in in

>*>

r^.

r-Q

/-N

*2n

rH
rH

cooocooNoocooor^r^cooooNOONOo

P
CO

X^/

>>>

ffi

CMCMCO<fCOCMCMOrHrHrHCO-<rCMrH

-M

^^^,-jHrHrHT-HrHrHrHrHrHrHrH

r~3

vD "*^T f*"^ vD in xf" "*sf" CO CM CM rH in in CO ON

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMrHCMCMCMCMCMCMrH

_ s<^

M 00

o d

1 1

^ 5

CO -P <U

60 CX d>
O <U M

ON ON rH O ON ON ON r*- CO ON ON O ON CO r**.

rH rH rH

J-t

CO CO

rpj

60 00

O -H

> )

rH T?

. nd

iHONininrHOONr*x-<t-<j-ir>ininocM
vDinvDvDvDvDm<finininvDvDvDin

cr>

00 d

d ^

d o

r^
CO

OOONOrHCMCOSj-mvDr^cOONOrHCM

o oo

174

TABLE A10 U.S. Hog Production, by Region, 1965, 1970, 1975, and
1980 a

Region

Share of
(% total

Hog Live Weight Produced
production), by Year

1965

1970

1975

1980

Corn Belt - Lake States

Eastern

Western

Northern Plains

Southeast

Southwest

Other

a From Van Arsdall and Nelson, 1984.

175

TABLE All U.S. Hog Facilities, by Type, 1980 a

Share of
in Type

Hogs (%), by
of Facility

Region,

Farrow-to-Finish

Feeder- to-Finish

North

South-

North

South-

Types of Housing

Central

east

Central

east

None

Open front building

Fully enclosed

no outside access

outside access

Mixed

Types of Floors

Paved

Slotted

Flush system

Scrape system

Mixed

Dirt

Other

a From Van Arsdall and Nelson, 1984.

b Less than 0.5%.

c Mixed paved and self-cleaning floors.

TABLE A12 U.S. Farrowing Facilities, by Type and Region, 1980 a

Share of Pigs (%) in Type of Farrowing Facility

Enterprise
and Region

Central

Facilities with

Portable Paved
None Houses Floor

Slotted Flush Scrape
Floor System System

Mix
Hou

Feeder pigs
North Central
Southeast

Farrow-to-finish
North Central
Southeast

6 13 18
80 49

7 10 38
16 4 35

16 4 17
24 9 3

23 2 1
27 7 1

26
7

19
10

a From Van Arsdall

TABLE A13 U. S.
Sales

and Nelson, 1984.

Hogs Sold, by Relative
, 1964 and 1974 a

Size of Farm and Annual

Annual
Sales
of Hogs
(thousand)

Share of
Hogs Sold (%)

Share of
Farms (%)

1964 1974

1-99
100 - 199
200 - 499
500 - 999
1,000 or more

23 11
23 13
33 29
13 22
7 25

67 56
18 17
12 18
2 6
1 2

a From Van Arsdall, 1978. Numbers have been rounded,

177
TABLE A14 U.S. Hogs and Pigs Sold, by Size of Enterprise and Region, 1978*

Percent of
(thousand)

Annual Sales by Enterprise Size
(N=Total No. Sold in Region)

All Hogs and Pigs

Feeder Pigs

North

South-

U.S.

North

South-

U.S.

Head sold
(thousand)

Central
(N=71,041)

east
(N=12,361)

Total
(N=92,140)

Central
(N=14,644)

east
(N=3,075)

Total
(N=20 3 020)

1 - 99

100 - 199

200 - 499

500 - 999

1,000 - 1,999

2,000 - 4,999

34 b

24 b

32 b

5,000 & over

a From Van Arsdall and Nelson, 1984. Numbers have been rounded.
b Annual sales of 1,000 or more.

1 (X

CD -P

H t-d

00 -M

4-) 00

cd &

H H

J-i <U 00

rH 0)

O {> rH

O"N CT\ O O* 1 * CTv rH **\T CD OO f^* CD CM Cs| CO CO

S
CJ

> -H (U

<! i-^l IS

CMCNCMCMCxJCMCMCNCMCMCMCNCMCMCM

cd ""d

cd / *" < ^

a; TJ

H d

00 0) -P

cd CQ ^

*-< -H

M CQ 00

0) rH

CD <U H

InS^ln^SSSSSf^r^^^If^

<i Q ^

^r-lrHrHrHrHrHHrHrHrHrHrHrHrH

in<fvjD<f^r^CMCTv*>ff > x| > N,O>vOCMCM

oo oo oo o^ oo r*^ oo ^jo r**** r >> r**** oo o^ o^ oo

00 <D -P

Cd CQ JU

U CQ 00

CD CD vH

f H co in vo CD >vf r*^ vo r*"** CD rH CM CM co co

> f-i 0)

in ^n in *n WD vo ^o vo vo r^ r^* r*** r^*- r*** r**^

<C O 3:

rHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrH

1 CO

CQ d

H O

r~i

4J CX

4-i

H ^-s

in vo oo r** cr> CM r*^ in CD ^ *sf* in CM co CTN

- I X i

i^r^i^oor^r^r^vor^r^r^coaNOor^

r~l +*

O rC

cd oo

CQ CQ

-d ^

00 M

Cd T3 Cd

| t pH A

^-v>inrxr^r^r^vonoor^asHoo

a d

4^ M U

C/D cd PQ

OOOOOOOOOOOOHrHrH

CQ x-s

d d

rH rH

C/)

minminin-<rinKfcosr<j-Ln>nin-<i*

rH "rH

JH >*-/

Tj M

0) 0)

O CQ
}H -i i

J-i 'd rH

Cd d *H

C3^ CD CO rH C^O r** rH rH I**** O^ CD CD VO CM "sJ"

<(J J2|

cd O

vor^r N s.oor^vjDr^vDvo\sDr N >.oooooor^

OO
vO
CTv

ON CTk

rH H

C^ ON
rH rH

179

TABLE A16 U.S. Sheep and Lamb Population, 1968-1983*

Year

Number of

Sheep and Lambs (thousand)

All Sheep
and Lambs

Sheep and
Lambs on Feed

Stock Sheep

1968

22,223

3,115

19,108

1969

21,350

2,995

18,355

1970

20,423

2,990

17,433

1971

19,731

2,785

16,946

1972

18,739

2,894

15,845

1973

17,641

2,873

14,768

1974

16,310

2,625

13,685

1975

14,515

2,079

12,436

1976

13,311

1,884

11,427

1977

12,722

1,731

10,991

1978

12,421

1,623

10,798

1979

12,365

1,579

10,786

1980

12,687

1,622

11,065

1981

12,936

1,649

11,287

1982

12,966

1,564

11,402

1983

11,904

1,641

10,263

a From USDA, 1983.

180

TABLE A17 The Top Ten Stocker Sheep States, 1982 a

State

Number of

Sheep (thousand)

Stock
Sheep

Marketings

Shipped
into State

Slaughtered

Sheep

Lambs

Texas

2,200

412

955

215

903

Wyoming

1,000

226

457

California

1,010

120

825

300

1,431

South Dakota

700

127

492

406

New Mexico

595

223

118

Montana

600

129

314

Utah

610

343

Colorado

480

109

725

548

1,348

Idaho

470

427

Oregon

440

236

Other states

3,297

782

2,357

708

2,186

Total

11,402

2,235

7,354

2,120

6,449

a From USDA, 1983.

181

TABLE A18 U,S Sheep and Lambs Slaughtered at Federally Inspected
Commercial Facilities, and Average Dressed and Live
Weights, 1968-1982*

At Federally Inspected
Facilities (thousand)

At All Commercial Facil-
ities Number (thousand) and
Weights (pounds)

Year

Lambs and
Yearlings

Mature
Sheep

Total

Number

Average
Dressed
Weight

Average
Live
Weight

1968

10,198

690

10,888

11,884

102

1969

9,340

728

10,070

10,691

104

1970

9,298

711

10,010

10,552

104

1971

9,437

819

10,256

10,729

104

1972

9,229

677

9,905

10,301

105

1973

8,426

808

9,234

9,597

107

1974

7,987

569

8,556

8,847

105

1975

6,993

558

7,552

7,835

104

1976

6,058

416

6,474

6,714

109

1977

5,643

489

6,133

6,356

108

1978

4,810

359

5,169

5,369

112

1979

4,499

334

4,833

5,017

114

1980

4,970

393

5,363

5,579

112

1981

5,388

401

5,789

6,008

110

1982

5,820

454

6,273

6,449

111

a From USDA, 1983. Numbers may not add up to totals due to
rounding*

A19 U.So Broiler and Layer Production, 1968-1982 a

Total Broilers

Total Layers

sar

Number
(million)

Weight
(million
pounds)

Numb er
(million)

Weight
(million
pounds)

968

2,620

9,326

244

1,109

969

2,789

10,048

252

1,144

970

2,987

10,819

269

1,190

971

2,945

10,818

258

1,212

972

3,075

11,480

233

1,118

973

3,009

11,220

251

1,172

974

2,993

11,320

242

1,186

975

2,950

11,096

233

1,067

976

3,274

12,481

229

1,109

977

3,394

12,962

245

1,172

978

3,614

14,000

242

1,136

979

3,951

15,522

251

1,216

980

3,964

15,544

241

1,180

981

4,150

16,530

242

1,188

982

4,151

16,770

246

1,171

From USDA, 1983.

A20 U.S. Egg and Broiler Production, by Region, 1980 a

Eggs

Number

From Lasley, 1983.

Chickens

Produced for Meat
Number

sgion (.billions; h (millions) A

ortheast

9.8

188

Drth Central

17.0

outh

30.2

3,497

ast

12.5

190

otal

69.5

100

3,964

100

183
TABLE A21 U.S, Farms Selling Broilers, by Size of Farm, 1978 a

Broilers b
per
Farm

Farms

Broilers b

Number
( thousand ) %

Number
(thousand) %

- 1,999

11,725

34.0

1,544

2,000

- 3,999

159

0.5

421 O.l d

4,000

- 7,999

256

0.7

1,462

8,000

- 15,999

555

1.6

6,510 0.2

16,000

- 29,999

895

2.6

19,992 0.6

30,000

- 59,999

3,114

9.0

138,926 4.4

60,000

- 99,999

5,432

15.8

409,344 13.1

100,000

or more

12,338

35.8

2,557,421 81.6

Total

34,474

100.0

3,135,619 100.0

a From Lasley, 1983.

" Includes other chickens produced for meat.

c Farms with at least $2,500 sales.

^ Sales combined for small groups

TABLE A22 Feed Efficiency, Period, and Average

Market Weight of U.S. Feeding Broilers
1955, 1965, 1975, and 1980 a

Year

Feed per
Weight Gain
(pound for
pound)

Feeding
Period
(days)

Market
Weight
(pounds)

1955

2.85

3.1

1965

2.36

3.5

1975

2.10

3.8

1980

2.08

4.0

a From Lasley, 1983.

184

TABLE A23 U*S. Poultry Slaughtered and Condemned under Federal
Inspection , by Category, 1982 a

Total Slaughtered

Weight Condemned
(thousand pounds)

Class

Number
(thousand)

Weight
(million
pounds)

Antemortemb

Postmortem

Young chickens

4,068,116

16,457

48,130

219,933

Mature chickens

201,843

899

10,889

28,511

Total chickens

4,269,959

17,356

59,019

248,444

Young turkeys

153,331

3,004

7,275

46,392

Old turkeys

1,308

176

1,119

Fryer-roaster
turkeys

5,737

125

488

Total turkeys

160,376

3,085

3,576

47,999

Ducks

19,834

125

152

1,891

Other poultry

Total poultry

20,574

66,755

298,390

a From USDA, 1983. Numbers may not add up to totals due to rounding.
^ Live weight.
c New York dressed weight.
not available.

185
TABLE A24 U.S. Turkey Population and Live Weight s, 1968-1982 a

Number Hatched (million)

Number
Raised
(million)

Live Weight
Produced
(million
pounds)

Year

Heavy
Breeds b

Light
Breeds b

Total

1968

100

114

107

2,015

1969

103

115

107

2,029

1970

116

130

116

2,198

1971

115

128

120

2,256

1972

126

142

129

2,424

1973

129

146

132

2,452

1974

126

140

132

2,437

1975

121

137

124

2,277

1976

131

149

140

2,606

1977

136

148

136

2,563

1978

149

158

139

2,655

1979

166

180

156

2,958

1980

172

189

165

3,069

1981

177

187

170

3,263

1982

177

184

165

3,176

a From USDA 3 1983.

k Heavy breeds normal market weight more than 12 pounds; light breeds,
less than 12 pounds.

186

TABLE A25 U.S. Turkey Farms, by Size, 1978 a

Turkeys per
Farm

Farms

Turkeys

Number

1 -

1,999

4,485

61.7

273

0.2

2,000 -

3,999

128

1.8

359

0.3

4,000 -

7,999

305

4.2

1,735

1.2

8,000 -

15,999

421

5.8

4,904

3.5

16,000 -

29,999

538

7.4

11,543

8.2

30,000 -

59,999

701

9.6

29,110

20.6

60,000 -

99,999

389

5.3

28,658

20.3

100,000

or more

304

4.2

64,721

45.8

Total

7,271

100.0

141,303

100.0

a From Lesley, 1983. Numbers may not add up to totals due to
rounding .

187
REFERENCES

Boykin, C. C. , H. C. Gilliam, and R. A. Gustafson. 1980.

Gee, C. K., R. N. Van Arsdall, and R. A. Gustafson. 1979. U.S.
Fed-Beef Production Costs, 1976-77, and Industry Structure.
Agricultural Economics Report No. 424. Economics, Statistics, and
Cooperatives Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C.

Lasley, F. A. 1983. The U.S. Poultry Industry: Changing Economics and
Structure. Agricultural Economic Report No. 502. Economic
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1983. Agricultural Statistics,
1983. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Van Arsdall, R. N., and K. E. Nelson. 1983. Characteristics of Farmer
Cattle Feeding. Agricultural Economic Report No. 503. Economic
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Van Arsdall, R. N., and K. E. Nelson. 1984. The U.S. Hog Industry.
Agricultural Economic Report No. 511. Economic Research Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Appendix JD

USD A Quality Control Regulations

On August 12, 1980, the U.S. Department of Agriculture finalized
details of the total quality control program, which was approved for
use by processing plants on a voluntary basis. The following is a copy
of the relevant sections of the Code of Federal Regulations as amended.

Therefore, section 318.4 of the Federal meat inspection regulations
(9 CFR 318.4) is amended by changing the section heading and the Table
of Contents, by rewording the second and third sentences of paragraph
(b), and by adding new paragraphs (c), (d) , (e), (f), and (g) to read as
follows :

318.4 Preparation of products to be officially supervised;

responsibilities of official establishments; plant operated quality
control.

(b)***In order to carry out this responsibility effectively, the
operator of the establishment shall institute appropriate measures to
assure the maintenance of the establishment and the preparation,
marking, labeling, packaging and other handling of its products strictly
in accordance with the sanitary and other requirements of this
subchapter. The effectiveness of such measures will be subject to
review by the Department.

(c) Applying for Total Plant Quality Control. Any owner or
operator of an official establishment preparing meat food product who
has a total plant quality control system or plan for controlling such
product, after ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection, through all
stages of preparation, may request the Administrator to evaluate it to
determine whether or not that system is adequate to result in product
being in compliance with the requirements of the Act and therefore
qualify as a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Total Plant Quality
Control Establishment. Such a request shall, as a minimum, include:

(1) A letter to the Administrator from the establishment owner or
operator stating the company's basis and purpose for seeking an approved
quality control system and willingness to adhere to the requirements of.
the system as approved by the Department; that all the establishment's
data, analyses, and information generated by its quality control system
will be maintained to enable the Department to monitor compliance and
available to Department personnel; that plant quality control personnel
will have authority to halt production or shipping of product in cases
where the submitted quality control system requires it; and that the
owner or operator (or his/her designee) will be available for
consultation at any time Department personnel consider it necessary.

(2) In the case of an establishment having one or more full-time
persons whose primary duties are related to the quality control system,
an organizational chart showing that such people ultimately report to an
establishment official whose quality control responsibilities are
independent of or not predominantly production responsibilities. In the
case of an establishment which does not have full-time quality control
personnel, information indicating the nature of the duties and
responsibilities of the person who will be responsible for the quality
control system.

(3) A list identifying those Parts and sections of the Federal
meat inspection regulations which are applicable to the operations of
the establishment applying for approval of a quality control system.
This list shall also identify which part of the quality control system
will serve to maintain compliance with the applicable regulations.

(4) Detailed information concerning the manner in which the system
will function. Such information should include, but not necessarily be
limited to, questions of raw material control, the critical check or
control points, the nature and frequency of tests to be made, the nature
of charts and other records that will be used, the length of time such
charts and records will be maintained in the custody of the official
establishment, the nature of deficiencies the quality control system is
designed to identify and control, the parameters or limits which will be
used, and the points at which corrective action will occur and the
nature of such corrective actionranging from least to most severe:
Provided, That, subsequent to approval of the total plant quality
control system by the Administrator, the official establishment may
produce a new product for test marketing provided labeling for the
product has been approved by the Administrator, the inspector in charge
has determined that the procedures for preparing the product will assure
that all Federal requirements are met, and the production for test
marketing does not exceed 6 months. Such new product shall not be
produced at that establishment after the 6-month period unless approval
of the quality control system for that product has been received from
the Administrator.

(d) Applying for Partial Quality Control. Any owner or operator
of an official establishment preparing meat food products who has a
quality control program for a product, operation, or a part of an
operation, may submit it to the Administrator and request a
determination as to whether or not that program is adequate to result in
product being in compliance with the requirements of the Act. Such a
request shall, as a minimum, include:

(1) A letter from the establishment official responsible for
quality control stating the objective of the program, and that all data
and information generated by the program will be maintained to enable
the Department to monitor compliance and available to Department
personnel.

(2) Detailed information concerning raw material control, the
critical check or control points, the nature and frequency of tests to
be made, the charts and records that will be used, the length of time
such charts and records will be maintained in the custody of the
official establishment, the limits which will be used and the points at
which corrective action will occur, and the nature of the corrective
action ranging from the least to the most severe.

(e) Evaluation and Approval of Total Plant Quality Control

or Partial Quality Control. (1) The Administrator shall evaluate the
material presented in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (c) or

(d) of this section. If it is determined by the Administrator on the
basis of the evaluation, that the total quality control system or
partial quality control program will result in finished products
controlled in this manner being in full compliance with the requirements
of the Act and regulations thereunder, the total quality control system
or partial quality control program will be approved and plans will be
made for implementation under departmental supervision.

(2) In any situation where the system or program is found by the
Administrator to be unacceptable, formal notification shall be given to
the applicant of the basis for the denial. The applicant will be
afforded an opportunity to modify the system or program in accordance
with the notification. The applicant shall also be afforded an
opportunity to submit a written statement in response to this
notification of denial and a right to request a hearing with respect to
the merits or validity of the denial. If the applicant requests a
hearing and the Administrator, after review of the answer, determines
the initial determination to be correct, he shall file with the Hearing
Clerk of the Department the notification, answer and the request for
hearing, which shall constitute the complaint and answer in the
proceeding, which shall thereafter be conducted in accordance with Rules
of Practice which shall be adopted for this proceeding.

(3) The establishment owner or operator shall be responsible for
the effective operation of the approved total plant quality control
system or partial quality control program to assure compliance with the
requirements of the Act and regulations thereunder. The Secretary shall
continue to provide the Federal inspection necessary to carry out his
responsibilities under the Act.

(f) Labeling Logo. Owners and operators of official
establishments having a total plant quality control system approved
under the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section, may only use, as
a part of any labeling, the following logo. Any labeling bearing the
logo and any wording of explanation with respect to this logo shall be
approved as required by Parts 316 and 317 of this subchapter.

(QUALITY
I CONTROL

USDA
APPROVED

(g) Termination of Total Plant Quality Control or Partial
Quality Control.

(1) The approval of a total plant quality control system or a
partial quality control program may be terminated at any time by the
owner or operator of the official establishment upon written notice to
the Administrator.

(2) The approval of a total plant quality control system or
partial quality control program may be terminated upon the
establishments receipt of a written notice from the Administrator under
the following conditions:

(i) If adulterated or misbranded meat food product is found by the
Administrator to have been prepared for or distributed in commerce by
the subject establishment. In such case, opportunity will be provided
to the establishment owner or operator to present views to the
Administrator within 30 days of the date of terminating the approval.
In those instances where there is conflict of facts, a hearing, under
applicable Rules of Practice, will be provided to the establishment
owner or operator to resolve the conflict. The Administrator's
termination of approval shall remain in effect pending the final
determination of the proceeding.

(ii) If the establishment fails to comply with the quality control
system or program to which it has agreed after being notified by letter
from the Administrator or his designee. Prior to such termination,
opportunity will be provided to the establishment owner or operator to
present views to the Administrator within 30 days of the date of the
letter. In those instances where there is a conflict of facts, a
hearing, under applicable Rules of Practice, will be provided to the
establishment owner or operator to resolve the conflict. The
Administrators termination of quality control approval shall remain in
effect pending the final determination of the proceeding.

(3) If approval of the total plant quality control system or
partial quality control program has been terminated in accordance with
the provisions of this section, an application and request for approval
of the same or a modified total plant quality control system will not be
evaluated by the Administrator for at least 6 months from the
termination date, or for at least 2 months from the termination date in
the case of a partial quality control program.

(Sees 5, 8, 21, 202, and 407 34 Stat. 1260, as amended, 21 U.S.C. 605,
608, 621, 642, and 677; 42 FR 35625, 35626, 35631)

Further, section 381.145 of the poultry products inspection
regulations (9 CFR 381.145) is amended as follows:

1. The paragraph designation rf (c) ff would be deleted and the
present text of that paragraph (c) would be added to the end of
paragraph (b) of that section.

2. New paragraphs (c) , (d), (e), (f), and (g) would be added to
read as follows:

381.145 Poultry products and other articles entering or at official
establishments; examination and other requirements.

(c) Applying for Total Plant Quality Control. Any owner or
operator of an official establishment preparing poultry product who has
a total plant quality control system or plan for controlling such
products, after ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection, through all
stages of preparation, may request the Administrator to evaluate it to
determine whether or not that system is adequate to result in product
being in compliance with the requirements of the Act and therefore
qualify as a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Total Plant Quality
Control Establishment. Such a request shall, as a minimum, include:

(1) A letter to the Administrator from the establishment owner or
operator stating the company f s basis and purpose for seeking an approved
quality control system and willingness to adhere to the requirements of
the system as approved by the Department; that all the establishments
data, analyses, and information generated by its quality control system
will be maintained to enable the Department to monitor compliance and
available to Department personnel; that plant quality control personnel
will have authority to halt production or shipping of product in cases
where the submitted quality control systems require it; and that the
owner or operator (or his/her designee) will be available for
consultation at any time Department personnel consider it necessary.

(2) In the case of an establishment having one or more full-time
persons whose primary duties are related to the quality control system,
an organizational chart showing that such people ultimately report to an
establishment official whose quality control responsibilities are
independent of or not predominantly production responsibilities. In the
case of a small establishment which does not have full-time quality
control personnel, information indicating the nature of the duties and
responsibilities of the person who will also be responsible for the
quality control system.

(3) A list identifying those Subparts and sections of the poultry
products inspection regulations which are applicable to the operations
of the establishment applying for approval of a quality control system.
This list shall also identify which part of the system will serve to
maintain compliance with the applicable regulations .

195

designed to identify and control, the parameters of limits which will be
used and the points at which corrective action will occur, and the
nature of such corrective action ranging from the least to most severe.
Provided, That, subsequent to approval of the total plant quality
control system by the Administrator, the official establishment may
produce a new product for test marketing provided labeling for the
product has been approved by the Administrator, the inspector in charge
has determined that the procedures for preparing the product will assure
that all Federal requirements are met, and the production for test
marketing does not exceed 6 months. Such new product shall not be
produced at that establishment after the 6-month period unless approval
of the quality control system for that product has been received from
the Administrator.

(d) Applying for Partial Quality Control. Any owner or operator
of an official establishment preparing poultry products who has a
quality control program for a product, operation, or a part of an
operation, may submit it to the Administrator and request a
determination as to whether or not that program is adequate to result in
product being in compliance with the requirements of the Act. Such a
request shall, as a minimum, include:

(e) Evaluation and Approval of Total Plant Quality Control

or Partial Quality Control. (1) The Administrator shall evaluate the
material presented in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (c) or
(d) of this section. If it is determined by the Administrator, on the
basis of the evaluation, that the total quality control system or
partial quality control program will result in finished products
controlled in this manner being in full compliance with the requirements
of the Act and regulation thereunder, the total quality control system
or partial quality control program will be approved and plans will be
made for implementation under departmental supervision.

196

notification of denial and a right to request a hearing with respect to
the merits or validity of the denial. If the applicant requests a
hearing and the Administrator , after review of the answer, determines
the initial determination to be correct , he shall file with the Hearing
Clerk of the Department the notification , answer and the request for
hearing, which shall constitute the complaint and answer in the
proceeding, which shall thereafter be conducted in accordance with Rule:
of Practice which shall be adopted for this proceeding.

(3) The establishment owner or operator shall be responsible for
the effective operation of the approved total plant quality control
system or partial quality control program to assure compliance with the
requirements of the Act and regulations thereunder. The Secretary shal!
continue to provide the Federal inspection necessary to carry out the
responsibilities of the Act.

QUALITY
CONTROL

USDA

APPROVED

197

(g) Termination of Total Plant Quality Control or Partial
Quality Control.

(2) The approval of a total plant quality control system or
partial quality control program may be terminated upon the
establishment's receipt of a written notice from the Administrator under
the following conditions:

(i) If adulterated or raisbranded poultry product is found by the
Administrator to have been prepared for or distributed in commerce by
the subject establishment. In such case, opportunity will be provided
to the establishment owner or operator to present views to the
Administrator within 30 days of the date of terminating the approval.
In those instances where there is a conflict of facts, a hearing, under
applicable Rules of Practice, will be afforded to the establishment
owner or operator, if requested, to resolve the conflict. The
Administrator's termination of approval shall remain in effect pending
the final determination of the proceeding.

198

stablishment owner or operator, if requested, to resolve the conflict,
he Administrator's termination of quality control approval shall remain
n effect pending the final determination of the proceeding.

(3) If approval of the total plant quality control system or
artial quality control program has been terminated in accordance with
he provisions of this section, an application and request for approval
f the same or a modified total plant quality control system will not be
valuated by the Administrator for at least 6 months from the
ermination date, or for at least 2 months from the termination date in
he case of a partial quality control program.

Sees. 7, ll(b), 14, 16 and 22, 71 Stat. 441, as amended, 21 U.S.C. 456,
60(b), 463, 465, and 467d; 42 FR 35625, 35626, and 35631)

Done at Washington, D.C., on: 12 August 1980

s/ Carol Tucker Foreman

arol Tucker Foreman
ssistant Secretary for
ood and Consumer Services

Glossary of Acronyms

CAST Calf Antibiotic Sulfonamide Test; also, Council for

Agricultural Science and Technology

CAT Computer-Assisted Axial Tomography

CDC Centers for Disease Control, Public Health Service,

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CHC Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

CLS Commission on Life Sciences

DES Diethylstilbesterol

DHHS Department of Health and Human Services (formerly DHEW,

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare)

DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid

EDB Ethylene Dibromide

ELISA Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FDA Food and Drug Administration, Public Health Service,

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

FNB Food and Nutrition Board

FSIS Food Safety and Inspection Service (formerly FSQS, Food Safet

and Quality Service) of U.S. Department of Agriculture

GLC Gas-Liquid Chromatography

HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point

HPLC High-Perf ormance Liquid Chromatography

LAST Live Animal Swab Test

MAB Monoclonal Antibody

MARCIS Microbiological and Residue Computer Information System

MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (published by CDC)

MS Mass Spectrometry

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NELS New Line Speed

NMR Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

NOEL No-Observed-Effect Level

NRG National Research Council

NRP National Residue Program

NTI New Turkey Inspection

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls

STOP Swab Test on Premises

TLC Thin Layer Chromatography

TQC Total Quality Control (FSIS-initiated program)

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

VMO VetP.rinarv MerH r.a1 Offlrpr

Index

Acceptable Quality Level, 87
Acidic compounds , 103
Acinetobacter , 97
Acronyms, list of , 199
Acrylonitrile, 48
Additives

in animal feeds, 6, 69
food additives, 47
Advisory panels, 11-12, 153,

162-163
Aeromonas, 23
Aflatoxin B lf 33, 45
Aflatoxin M lr 142
Agricultural chemicals, 44-45
Agriculture Department (USDA) ,

14, 110, 158-159, 161
education programs, 31, 34
quality control regulations,

189-198

regulatory conflicts, 49; see
also Food Safety and
Inspection Service
Albendazole, 52
Aldrin, 44

Anabolic steroids, 69, 72
Animal production, 68-79
cattle, 68-70, 166-172
chickens, 72-73, 182-184
critical control points,

128-129
feeds, antibiotic and pesticide

residues, 27, 44, 46, 49
health maintenance and disease

swine, 70-71, 97, 173-178
transportation, 74
turkeys, 73-74, 185-186
Antemortem inspection, 80-81, 90,

129

Anthrax, 30
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria,

25, 27-28, 129
Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals,

6, 9, 46, 49, 52, 54, 69,

70, 73, 129
Antibody, 141
Antioxidants, 47
Arsenic, 52
Arsenicals, 73
Atomic absorption

spec tropho tome try ,

139
Avian influenza, 14

Bacillus, 105
Bacillus anthracis, 23
Bacillus cereus, 22, 23, 24,

103-105

Bacillus licheniformis, 23
Bacon, 102-103, 130, 131, 133
Balantidium coli, 23
Beef cattle, see Cattle
Beef products, see specific meat

products

Benzene hexachloride, 44
Bologna, 105

Broilers, see Poultry
Bronchitis, 75

Brucellosis, 4, 30, 75, 76, 88,
142

Calf antibiotic sulfonamide test

(CAST) , 9-10
Campy lobacter , 3-4, 24, 34, 76,

129

Campy lobacter coli, 23
Campy lobacter fetus subsp.

fetus, 23
Campy lobacter jejuni, 21, 22,

23, 26, 30, 33, 90, 97
Campy lobacter ios is, 26, 29
Canned meat and poultry
critical control points,

132-133

see also Low-acid canned foods
Carbamates, 44
Carcass contamination, 11, 90,

97, 129, 153

Carcass inspection, 11, 82-87
Carcinogens, 47

Catalase-negative bacteria, 105
Cattle

beef measles, 29
brucellosis eradication, 88
chemical sampling, 151
diseases and pathogens, 25, 26,

29, 75, 87-88

"hide-on" slaughtering, 90, 91
hormones and other chemicals,

postmortem inspection, 82, 83
production, 6, 68-70, 74, 76,

77, 166-172
Centers for Disease Control

(CDC), 12, 18
Certification of product

compliance, 11, 151, 152
Chemical contamination, 43-67
additives, 47

agricultural chemicals, 44-45
antibiotics and other

phamaceuticals, 6, 46
chlorine, 47

contamination sources, 43-44
critical control points,

128-129
environmental chemicals, 7,

45-46

heating, 47

inspection improvements, 59
irradiation, 48
National Residue Program (NRP) ,

4-6, 49-54, 56-61, 87, 138
packaging materials, 48
processing-related

contamination , 46-4 8
public management, 58-59
regulatory conflicts, 49
residue detection

technologies, 11, 139, 140,
152
residue monitoring, optimal

program, 54-61
storage, 48
Chickens, see Poultry
Chilled meat and poultry, 95,

97, 102, 130

Chlamydia psittaci, 23, 30
Chloramphenicol, 52
Chlordane, 44

Chlorinated hydrocarbons, 44, 52
Chlorine, 47, 132, 133
Ch lor tetracyc line, 27
Citrobacter, 23
Cloning, 141

Clostridium, 4, 103, 105, 129
Clostridium botulinum, 23, 28,

33, 98, 102, 105-107, 133
Clostridium perfringens, 21, 22,
23, 24, 26, 30, 90, 97,
103-105, 107, 132
Clostridium sporoqenes , 106
Coccidiostats, 73
Coliforms, 75, 76
Colitis, hemorrhagic, 98
Communication strategies, 6, 12,

61, 153, 162
Computer-assisted axial

tomography (CAT) , 144
Computer-assisted information

systems, 9, 12, 145-146, 153
Condemnation criteria and
procedures, 89

Consumer education, 31 f 34, 153
Consumer responsibility, 58, 153
Corned beef, 130
Cowpox virus, 23
Coxiella burnettii, 23
Critical control points, 24-25
traditional inspection,

111-112, 118

see also Hazard Analysis
Critical Control Point
(HACCP) system
Cross-contamination

mechanism, 4, 21, 30, 86, 96,

102, 104-105, 129, 130
reduction, 11, 90, 153
critical control points,

130-131, 133
microbial contamination and

spoilage, 102-103, 105, 106
Cryomazine, 52
Cured meat and poultry, 95
Cysticercosis, 29, 76
Cysticercus, 28, 33
Cysticercus bovis, 29
Cysticercus cellulosae, 29

Ecthyma contagiosum, 29
Education and training

consumer education, 31, 34, 153

of inspectors, 11, 56, 118,
134, 153, 160

prevention of chemical

residues in livestock, 53

veterinarians' training, 80
Endrin, 44

Enforcement capability, 11, 153
Enteric agents, 24-28, 90
Enteritis, 22, 25
Enterobacteriaceae, 103
Enterococci, 105, 107
Environmental chemicals, 7, 45-46
Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) , 6, 43, 49
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

(ELISA) , 142

Erysipelothrix r h us iopa thiae , 23
Escherichia coli, 22, 23, 27,

33, 90, 97, 98, 132
Estrogenic compounds, 44, 52, 54
Exploratory testing, 53
Exposure assessment, 155
Extraintestinal agents, 28-29

Dead animals, 104
Dermal infections, 29-30
Diarrhea, 22, 75
Dichlorodiphenyltr ichloroe thane

(DDT) , 44
Dieldrin, 44
Diethylstilbestrol (DBS), 44,

52, 54
Direct fluorescence antibody

technique, 140

Diseased animals, 8, 91, 104
Diseases, food-borne, see

Microbial contamination
Disposition criteria, 88-89
Dried meat and poultry, 95
critical control points,

131-132
microbial contamination and

spoilage, 103-104

Fecal contamination, 25, 26, 28,

86, 90
Federal Meat Inspection Act of

1906, 1, 14, 80
Feeds, see Animal production
Fenbendazole , 52
Fermented sausage, 103, 131
Flavor additives, 47
Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) , 6, 12, 49
Food-borne diseases, see

Microbial contamination
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,

45, 47
Food Safety and Inspection

Service (FSIS) , 9, 91,

146-147, 156
animal production

jurisdiction, 6, 7, 68

disease screening programs , 88
evaluation , 158-163
industry relationship , 160
information systems , 9, 145 ,

146
inspection procedures, 7,

107-112

National Residue Program (NRP) ,
4-6, 44 r 49-54, 56-61, 87,
138
obligations and goals, 1-3,

87, 134-135

optimal inspection system,
10-12, 150-153, 158-163
recommendations, 4 r 10-12, 35,

92, 118, 147

regulatory conflicts, 49
Total Quality Control (TQC)
Program, 8-9, 113-116, 118,
189-198
Food-service establishments, 4,

30-31

Fowl plague, 14
Franc isella tularensis, 23
Frozen meat and poultry, 95, 97,

102, 130
Funding, 157, 161

Gas-liquid chroma tography (GLC) ,

138, 140

Gene splicing, 140-141
Goats, chemical sampling of, 151
Ground beef, 97, 130

Halocarbons, 54
Ham, 101, 102, 105, 131, 133
Hamburgers, 97, 98
Hazard Analysis Critical Control
Point (HACCP) system, 11,
91, 124-137, 152
critical control points,

126-127, 135

hazard analysis, 125-126, 135
meat and poultry industry
applications, 128-134

monitoring, 127-128
personnel training, 134
program principles, 124-128,

134-136

Hazard assessment, 155
Hazard identification, 155
Hazardous chemicals, see Chemical

contamination
Head inspection, 82-86
Health hazards, see Chemical

contamination; Microbial

contamination
Health of animals, see^ Animal

production
Heating, 47
Hepatitis, 26
Hepatitis A, 22, 28
Heptachlor, 44

"Hide-on" slaughtering, 90, 91
High-performance liquid

chroma tography (HPLC) , 139,

140

Hogs, see Swine
Hormone residues, 44, 54
Horses, chemical sampling, 51
Hot water wash, 91
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act

of 1978, 81
Hybr idoma , 14 1
Hydrogen peroxide, 105

Imaging techniques, 142-144
Indirect fluorescence antibody

technique, 140

Industry/FSIS relationship, 160
Industry quality control

programs, 112, 116, 118
Information systems, 9, 12, 56,

145-146, 153

Infrared spectrophotometry, 139
Inspection personnel, 11, 56,

118, 134, 153, 160
Inspection programs and

techniques
advanced technologies,

evaluation, 9-10, 146-147
ancillary measures, 31-33

assessments , 2-3, 15, 18-19 ,

158-163
chemical residue monitor ing ,

program recommendations ,

54-61
computer-assisted information

systems, 9, 12, 145-146, 153
federal funding, 157, 161
historical background, 1-2,

13-17

imaging techniques, 142-144
industry quality control, 112,

116, 118
National Residue Program

(NRP), 4-6, 49-54, 56-61,

87, 138
optimal program, 10-12,

150-153, 158-163
personnel training, 11, 56,

118, 134, 153, 160
postmortem procedures, past,

present, and future, 83-85
recommendations, 118-119
risk assessment, 5, 6, 8, 55,

58, 59, 61, 154-158, 163
robotics, 145
separation and identification

technologies, 138-142
strategies compared, 107-109
Total Quality Control (TQC) ,

8-9, 113-116, 118, 189-198
traditional inspection, 109-112
see also Hazard Analysis

Critical Control Point

(HACCP) system; Slaughter

and inspection
Ipronidazole, 52
Irradiation, 48, 91
Irradiation pasteurized meat and

poultry

critical control points, 133
microbial contamination and

spoilage, 106-107
Ivermectin, 52

Klebsiella, 23

Labeling, 110, 119

Laboratory analysis, 146

Lactic acid bacteria, 102, 103,
105, 107, 130, 131

Lasalocid, 52

Lead, 46

Leptospira, 23

Leptospirosis, 29, 75

Leramisole, 52

Listeria monocy togenes , 23

Listeriosis, 30

Live animal swab test (LAST) , 146

Livestock, see Cattle

Low-acid canned foods

critical control points, 133
microbial contamination and
spoilage, 105-106

Luncheon meats, 133

Mass spectrometry (MS), 139-140

Mastitis, 26

Meat Inspection Act of 1890, 14

Meats, see specific meat products

Mesophilic spores, 106

Metal fragments, 48, 144

Me thoxych lor , 44

Michigan, polybrominated biphenyl

contamination, 7, 45
Microbial contamination, 21-42,

95-107
critical control points,

129-134
cured meat and poultry,

102-103, 105, 106, 130-131,
133
disease outbreaks, 21, 22,

31-32, 96, 98-101
dried meat and poultry,

103-104, 131-132
enteric agents, 24-28
extraintestinal agents, 28-29
fermented sausages, 103, 131
low-acid canned foods,
105-106, 133

occupational diseases, 29-30
overview , 3-4, 33-35
pasteurized foods, 104-105, 132
post-processing precautions,

30-33, 133-134

radappertized foods, 107, 133
radicidized foods, 106-107, 133
raw meat and poultry, 97, 102,

129-131

rendered meat and fat, 104
smoked meat and poultry, 103,

131

spoilage and contamination
compared, 95, 97, 102-107,
116
time-temperature exposure,

96-97, 118

transmission modes, 21, 23, 24
Microbiological and Residue

Computer Information System
(MARCIS) , 146
Micrococci, 105
Microorganisms

antibiotic-resistant , 25 ,

27-28, 129

see also Specific pathogens
Modified traditional inspection

(MTI) , 82, 85
Molds, 33, 45, 102-105
Monitoring procedures, 50
Monoclonal antibody technology,

141

Moraxella, 97, 107
Mycobac ter ium bovis, 87
Mycotoxins, 45-46, 103, 142

National Residue Program (NRP) ,

4-6, 44, 49-54, 56-61, 87,

138
New line speed (NELS) procedure,

7, 85, 86
New turkey inspection (NTI) , 7,

85
New York Live Poultry Commission

Association, 14
Newcastle virus, 23
Nitrites and nitrates, 102-103,

105, 130, 131, 133

Nuclear magnetic resonance
(NMR) , 144

Occupational infectious

diseases, 4, 29-30, 34
Ochratoxin A, 45
Orf , see Ecthyma contagiosum
Organoleptic methods, 4, 15
Organophosphates , 44, 52, 54

Packaging materials, 48
Packaging procedures, 97, 102,

105, 130
Parasites, 104

Pasteurized meat and poultry, 21
critical control points, 132,

133
microbial contamination and

spoilage, 104, 106
Patulin, 45
Penicillic acid, 45
Pentachlorophenol , 52
Pesticides, 44-45, 49, 128-129,

140
Pharmaceuticals and antibiotics,

6, 9, 46, 49, 54, 69, 70,
73, 129

Phenolic compounds, 103
Pigs, see Swine
Pigs' feet, 133
Plant sanitation, 86
Plesiomonas shigelloides, 23
Policy Analysis, Office of, 162
Polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) ,

7, 45

Polychlornated biphenyls (PCBs) ,

7, 45
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

(PAHs) , 47

Polyvinyl chloride, 48
Pork, see Swine

Postmortem inspection, 7-8, 82-90
Pot pies, 98

Poultry

antemortem inspection , 81-90
chemical sampling , 151
chicken pr eduction , 72-73 , 77,

182-184
chilling, 87
condemnation, 89
diseases and pathogens, 14 , 25,

26, 30, 45
postmortem inspection, 7, 82,

85, 86
risk assessment applications,

157
turkey production , 73-74, 77,

185-186
turkey products, chemical

contamination, 7, 45
Poultry Products Inspection

Act, 1

Pregnant animals, 8, 91
Preservation methods, 95
Prevention of chemical residues,

53, 55
Processed meat and poultry

processed product, definition,

95, 116
see also Microbial

contamination

Production, see Animal production
Proteus, 23
Providencia, 23
Pseudomonas, 97
Pseudomonas mallei, 23
Pseudorabies, 75, 88
Psittacosis, 4, 29, 30
Psychrotropic bacteria, 105
Pustular dermatitis, 29
Putrefaction, 105
Putrefactive anaerobes, 106

Q-fever, 29

Quality control, see Inspection

programs and techniques;

Agriculture Department

Rabbits, chemical sampling, 51
Rabies, 8, 30, 91

Radappertized meat and poultry
critical control points, 133
microbial contamination, 107
Radicidized meat and poultry
critical control points, 133
microbial contamination and

spoilage, 106-107
Radioiramunoassay ,140
Raw meat and poultry

critical control points,

129-131
microbial contamination and

spoilage, 97, 102
Recombinant DNA technology, 140-

141

Regulatory policy, 6, 49, 56
Rendered meat and fat, 104
Research programs, FSIS support,

161
Residue monitoring, see Chemical

contamination
Rickettsia, 28
Risk assessment, 5, 6, 8, 55, 58,

59, 61, 154-158, 163
Risk management, 60, 156
Roast beef, 98, 99, 100, 105
Robotics, 145

Salami, 96, 100, 103
Salmonella , 3-4, 7, 22, 23, 34,

73, 75, 76, 90, 95
antibiotic-resistant strains,

27-28
in processed meat and poultry,

97, 102-107, 129, 132
transmission modes, 21, 24-26,

30, 33

Salmonella bovis-morbif icans, 99
Salmonella Chester , 100
Salmonella havana, 100
Salmonella newport, 27-28, 98,

99, 100

Salmonella saint paul, 98, 100
Salmonella tennessee, 100
Salmonella typhimurium, 100
Salmonellosis, 25, 29, 96, 97,

98, 142

Salt (curing process), 102-103,
130, 133

Salt pork, 131

Sampling plan, 5, 11, 50-53, 55,

60, 91, 152

Sanitation, 86, 129, 159
Sarcosystis, 23

Sausage, 101, 102, 103, 131, 133
Scald water, 129
Screening tests, 11, 152
Septicemia, 25, 30
Sheep, chemical sampling, 51
Sheep production, 71-72, 77,

179-181
Shelf-stable, cured foods, 106,

133

Shigella, 23
Shigellosis, 22, 28
Slaughter and inspection, 80-94
animal disease surveillance,

87-88

antemortem inspection, 80-81
condemnation, 89
critical control points, 129
diseased animals, 8, 91
final disposition, 88-89
plant sanitation, 86
postmortem inspection, 82-89
pregnant animals, 8, 91
procedures evaluation, 7-8,

90-91

recommendations, 91-92
risk assessment applications,

157
sanitary slaughter and

dressing, 86
Smoked meat and poultry, 95,

103, 131
Souring, 102-105
Spoilage, see Microbial

contamination
Spore-forming bacteria, 24
Spores, 102, 104, 106
Staphylococcal intoxication, 22,

29, 96

S taphylococcus , 4, 105, 131
S t aphy lococcu s aureus, 23, 28,

30, 95, 100, 101

in processed meat and poultry,

97, 102-105, 129, 131, 132
S taphylococcus pyogenes , 23
Sterilized meat and poultry, 106,
107, 133

Storage, 48
Streptococci, 105
S t r eptococc us faecallis, 23
S t r ep tococcu s faecium, 23
Streptococcus infections, 30
Streptococcus pyogenes , 23
Sulfanilamides, 54
Sulf onamides , 10, 152
Superficial mycoses, 29
Surveillance procedures, 31-32,

34, 50, 53, 87-88
Swab Test on Premises (STOP) ,

9, 53
Swine

brucellosis eradication, 88
chemical sampling, 51
ochratoxin intoxication, 45-46
pork tapeworm, 29
postmortem inspection, 7, 82,

84, 88
production, 70-71, 74, 76, 77,

173-178

trichinosis, 4, 28, 33-34, 76,
88, 96, 97, 101, 107, 130,
131, 155

Taenia saginata, 23, 29
Taenia solium, 23, 29
Technical Services Office, 162
Technological inspection

procedures, see Inspection

programs and techniques
Testing programs, 53, 55-56
Tetracycline, 27
Thermophilic spores, 106
Thin-layer chromatography (TLC) ,

138
Time- temperature exposure,

96-97, 118

Tolerance levels, 55
Total Quality Control (TQC)

Program, 8-9, 113-118 189-19!
Toxaphene, 44

Toxoplasma gondii, 23, 28, 33
Toxoplasmosis, 22, 28, 29, 142
Trace elements, 52, 101
Trace-back and recall system, 5

10, 60, 151

209

Training , see Education and

training

Transportation of animals , 74
Trichinella spiralis, 4, 23, 28,

33-34, 96, 97, 107, 130 r

131, 155

Trichinosis, 22, 28, 76, 88, 96
Tr ichothecenes , 4 5
Tuberculosis, 75, 76, 87-88
Turkey rolls, 105
Turkeys, see Poultry

Ultrasonic imaging, 143-144
Ultraviolet spectrophotometry ,

139
USDA, see Agriculture Department

Veal, 69

Veterinarians, 80, 159-160

Viral diarrhea, 75

Viruses, 28, 104

Viscera inspection, 82-86

Washington, 7, 26, 45
Water activity (a w ) , 102, 103
Wholesome Meat Act of 1967, 15
Wholesome Poultry Products Act of

1968, 15, 81, 90
Wieners, 105

X-ray imaging, 142-143

Yeasts, 103-105

Yersinia enter ocolitica, 23, 30,

Yersinia pseudo tuberculosis, 23
Yugoslavia, 45

Zearalenone, 45
Zeranol, 72

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Meat and Poultry Inspection"

See other formats